Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Gujarat High Court

Bhikhabhai vs Special on 7 October, 2010

Author: D.H.Waghela

Bench: D.H.Waghela

   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

SCA/13037/2010	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 13037 of 2010
 

With


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 13038 of 2010
 

 
=========================================================

 

BHIKHABHAI
DEVJIBHAI PATEL - Petitioner(s)
 

Versus
 

SPECIAL
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER & 1 - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================================
 
Appearance
: 
MR
YOGESH MOTIRAMANI FOR MR DIVYESH G NIMAVAT
for
Petitioners 
MS TRUSHA K PATEL, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for
Respondents 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA
		
	
	 
		 
		 
			 

and
		
	
	 
		 
		 
			 

HON'BLE
			SMT. JUSTICE ABHILASHA KUMARI
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 07/10/2010 

 

COMMON
ORAL ORDER 

(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA)

1. The petitioners have, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, sought quashing of the communications dated 16.09.2010 whereby the Special Land Acquisition Officer has called upon the advocate of the petitioners to pay up the Court Fees by 30.09.2010 on the applications for Reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

2. Learned counsel Mr.Motiramani appearing for the petitioners submitted that the impugned communications were based upon order dated 29.06.2010 of this Court in Special Civil Application No.3493 of 2010 in which only the consent of the party concerned to pay up the Court Fees was recorded. It is submitted that the provisions of the Gujarat Court Fees Act, 2004, were not in consonance with the ratio of the judgment in Kashi Ram Namdeo Zambro v. State of Maharashtra [(1996)1 SCC 289] and therefore, the Land Acquisition Officer had no authority to demand Court Fees from the petitioners.

3. Learned counsel fairly conceded that the petitioners have not challenged the validity or vires of the Gujarat Court Fees Act, 2004, under the provisions whereof Court Fees were required to be paid on an application to the Collector for a Reference to the Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Under such circumstances, while the provisions of the Gujarat Court Fees Act, 2004, are prevailing and not under challenge, there is no reason why the petitioners should not pay the Court Fees as prescribed in the Gujarat Court Fees Act, 2004. It was conceded that the time limit for payment of Court Fees is now extended by a written order, to 15.10.2010.

4. The petitions do not survive for grant of any relief and accordingly, they are dismissed.

(D.H.Waghela, J.) (Smt.Abhilasha Kumari, J.) (sunil)     Top