Gujarat High Court
Girishbhai vs State on 11 September, 2008
Author: K.S.Radhakrishnan
Bench: K.S.Radhakrishnan
Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
LPA/94420/2008 2/ 3 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL No. 944 of 2008
In
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 28757 of 2007
With
CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 10506 of 2008
With
CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 10507 of 2008
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN
AND
HONOURABLE
MR. JUSTICE MOHIT S. SHAH
=================================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2
To
be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
=================================================
GIRISHBHAI
I VARIA & 9 - Appellant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 11 - Respondent(s)
=================================================
Appearance :
MR
RK MISHRA for Appellant(s) : 1 - 10.
GOVERNMENT PLEADER for
Respondent(s) : 1,
None for Respondent(s) : 2 -
12.
=================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN
and
HONOURABLE
MR. JUSTICE MOHIT S. SHAH
Date
: 11/09/2008
CAV JUDGMENT
(Per : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT S. SHAH) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 8.8.2008 of the learned Single Judge dismissing the petition in which the present appellants challenged the action of the Government in allotting the open plot in front of their residential units to several Government servants primarily on the ground that under the General Development Control Regulations (GDCR) framed by the Gandhinagar Urban Development Authority, such plots reserved for playground etc. cannot be allotted in favour of any person.
2. The learned Single Judge found that there was no material on record to show that the land in question was reserved for common use such as playground, etc.. The learned Single Judge also held that the land proposed to be allotted belongs to the Government and the land was not reserved for any particular purpose. Hence , it was open to the Government to use the same as may be permissible under the Rules.
3. The appellants had earlier moved this Court on the same subject by filing Special Civil Application No. 28757 of 2007 which was disposed of by order dated 2.11.2007 directing the Collector, Gandhinagar to consider the objections dated 7.10.2007. The Collector considered the objections and in his order dated 3.12.2007 found that the appellants themselves were allotted plots at concessional rate out of open land which was shown as a play ground in the map prepared by the authorities. The Collector made a specific reference to map No. 4 in the impugned order and indicated that Sector 3, in which the plots of land are to be allotted, has open lands larger than the lands required to be kept open as common plots under the GDCR framed by the Gandhinagar Urban Development Authority. The Collector also held that the open plot to be used as play ground for children need not be right in front of the plot allotted to an employee. Hence, there was no justification for not making allotment of land to other Government servants at concessional rate as per the Government policy.
4. Mr RK Mishra, learned counsel for the appellants sought to raise factual contentions which were not raised before the learned Single Judge. Such questions of fact cannot be permitted to be raised in the Letters Patent Appeal. Even otherwise, having seen the maps produced with the impugned order of the Collector, we see no scope for interfering with the findings of fact given in the said order.
5. We are in agreement with the reasoning and conclusion of the learned Single Judge. Since we do not find any substance in this appeal, the appeal is summarily dismissed.
6. Since the appeal is dismissed, Civil Applications for amendment and stay also do not survive and are accordingly disposed of.
[K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, CJ.] [M.S. SHAH, J.] sundar/-
Top