Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(D) An ex-parte ad interim relief in terms of paragraph 9 (B) and 9 (C)above may kindly be granted.
(E) Any other and further reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

4. Brief facts arise from the record are as under:-

The present petitioner which is a partnership firm registered under Indian Partnership Act, sold different plots of revenue survey no. 46 admeasuring around 3 Acres 6 Gunthas of village- Bholav, District Bharuch by different sale deed in the year 1986 onwards. Registered sale deed was executed between the parties. Piece of land was kept as common plot of the aforesaid peace of land.

5. Mr. D.G.Shukla appearing for the petitioner submitted that respondents to whom the plots were sold individually had no right, title in the common plot which has been acquired by the concerned authority. He would submit that specific averment is incorporated in the sale deed that the plot holders have no right, title or interest in the common plot. It was also further clarified in the sale deed that ownership of the common plot remained with seller and therefore, the petitioner only is entitled for amount of compensation which is awarded and might be increased by the Reference Court in the reference proceedings. It further submitted that Trial Court has erred in allowing applications at Exh. 14 and Exh. 24 and submitted that the impugned order may be quashed and set aside.

6. Ms. Archana Acharaya, learned advocate for the respondent nos. 2 to 5 opposed the petition. She would submit that the learned Trial HC-NIC Page 3 of 5 Created On Mon Aug 14 02:24:14 IST 2017 Court only joined plot holders as party respondent, however, has not observed anything against the petitioner while joining them as party respondent. It is the case of the respondent that common plot was kept only for the purpose of use of the plot holders to whom individual plots were sold by the petitioner. She would submit that there is no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Trial Court. Hence, the petition be dismissed.

7. I have heard learned advocates for the parties. Perused the impugned order and applications submitted by the State of Gujarat Land Acquisition Officer as well as private party and the sale deed executed by the petitioner in favour of the individual party.

8. It is an undisputed fact that individual plots were sold to several persons and piece of land was kept open for use of plot holders as common plot and they were using the same since 1986. However, without dealing with the rights of either party, I am of the opinion that if the plots holders who have been ordered to be joined as party respondent in the land reference case are heard that after giving opportunity to all concerned would not prejudice the petitioner.