Gujarat High Court
Bhupendrasing vs Chandubhai on 14 July, 2010
Author: Anant S. Dave
Bench: Anant S. Dave
Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/12852/2009 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 12852 of 2009
======================================
BHUPENDRASING
AJABSING MAHIDA
Versus
CHANDUBHAI
BHAGUBHAI LAKUM & another
======================================
Appearance :
MR
DEVENDRA K RATHOD for Petitioners
MR NIKHIL S KARIEL for
Respondents
======================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE
Date
: 14/07/2010
ORAL
ORDER
1 This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed by the petitioner [original defendant] against the concurrent findings of the Courts below vide order dated 3.5.2008 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Anand, in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 683 of 2006 and the order dated 30.3.2005 passed by the Civil Judge (J.D.), Petlad, below Exh.5 in Regular Civil Suit No.71 of 2004, and ordering status-quo qua the construction sought to be carried out on the basis of revised lay-out plan issued by the Taluka Panchayat Office, Sojitra on 22.6.2001 by charging necessary fees from the appellant (original defendant) by which the appellant (original defendant) was allowed to reduce internal society road from 6 meters to 4 meters width and was allowed to carry out plot/building on the common plot land.
2 The Courts below have, prima-facie, found that the construction sought to be carried out as per the revised plan is on the common plot of the society where the plaintiffs purchased the land in 1991 and, without hearing them, such plan was revised. Besides, as per the Government Resolution dated 13.9.1993 issued by the Revenue Department, once the common plot is declared in any of the society, the said common plot cannot be converted into any commercial plot and no kind of construction can be carried out in the common plot. The above reasonings assigned by the Courts below cannot be said to be causing any grave injustice to the petitioner nor it can be said that any error of law much less jurisdictional error is committed by the Courts below warranting this Court to exercise of power under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Hence, this petition is rejected. Notice is discharged with no order as to costs.
(ANANT S. DAVE, J.) (swamy) Top