Popat Khima Ramani (Decd.) Through His ... vs Collector And Ors. on 18 April, 2002
(iv) Siddharthbhai B. Shah v. State of Gujarat, 1999 (3) GLR 2527.
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.40 seconds)Documents citing
Siddharthbhai B. Shah vs State Of Gujarat on 7 April, 1999
Shubhashbhai Chhaganbhai Chhorvadiya vs State Of Gujarat on 10 January, 2023
8. It would also be apposite to note that the Collector has doubted the
status of the petitioners being agriculturists by passing the impugned
order and seting aside the concerned entry. At this stage, it would be
apposite to refer the observations made by this Court in the case of
Siddharthbhai B. Shah (supra), this Court, while examining the
provision of Rule 108 of the Rules has held thus:-
Kansai Nerolac Paints Limited vs State Of Gujarat on 9 October, 2019
Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Devang S. Nanavati
appearing for the petitioners submitted that
while passing the impugned order, the Deputy
Collector has given direction to the Mamlatdar &
ALT to proceed against the petitioners for breach
of conditions and certain findings are recorded
by the Deputy Collector, which is impermissible.
Therefore, the impugned order is without
jurisdiction. Learned Senior Counsel has placed
reliance upon the decision rendered by this Court
in the case of Govindji Chhabaji & Ors. v. Prant
Officer, Viramgam Prant, Ahmedabad & Ors.,
reported in AIR 2004 Gujarat 309 as well as
decision rendered in the case of Siddharthbhai B.
Shan & Ors v. State of Gujarat & Ors., reported
in 1999(3) GLR 2527.
Rakesh Shivbhagwan Agrawala vs Talati-Cum-Mantri on 1 February, 2002
4. Mr. Sanjanwala appearing for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgments of this court in the matter of Siddharthbhai B. Shah v. State of Gujarat reported in 1999(2) G.L.H.82 and in the matter of Evergreen Apartment Coop. Housing Society v. Special Secretary, Revenue Department, Gujarat State reported in 32(1) GLR 113 for contending that the observations made by the Revenue authority regarding the validity of the sale would come against him in other proceedings and, therefore, this court should interfere with the orders passed by the State Government and lower revenue authorities. I am afraid that this contention of Mr. Sanjanwala can not be accepted. In the present case the observations made by the authorities are only to be construed for the purpose of revenue entry only and further it is well settled that the observations made by the revenue authority for the purpose of cancelling the entry would not prejudice the case of either party in appropriate proceedings before appropriate forum.
1