Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 31 (0.45 seconds)
Gujarat Housing Board vs Kalpeshkumar Naranbhai Patel And Ors. on 8 November, 2001 cites

Moti Panchi Nagar Panchayat vs State Of Gujarat And Ors. on 25 July, 1994

However, Mr. Pandit, while highlighting the case before tribunal has submitted that the facts were brought to the notice of the tribunal that earlier appeal was filed by the father respondent No. 4 has been dismissed by the tribunal on 31st July, 1986 but despite of this fact, the tribunal has not considered this aspect and second appeal against the said order was entertained by the tribunal and resultantly, the tribunal has committed gross error in allowing the appeal by order dated 30th January, 1999. Mr. Pandit, learned Advocate has also submitted that the order passed by the competent authority on 25th October, 1982 and after period of 16 years, the appeal was filed by the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 being Appeal No. 54 of 1998 and meanwhile, equity has been created in favour of the present petitioner and position of the land in question has been changed in favour of the petitioner and moreover, considering the altered situation in favour of the petitioner, the order passed by the tribunal is required to be set aside. He also relied upon the decision of this Court in case of Bai Dhani Wd/o. Him Moti v. State of Gujarat, reported in 1996 (3) GCD 15. He also relied upon the observations made by this Court that the powers of State Government under Section 34 of the Act, 1976, the suo motu exercise of powers in revision after delay of four years on justifiable factual situation, delayed revision may be allowed but in the present case, during the intervening period of more than four years, the petitioner have spent huge amount and have made investment in raising dwelling units, and therefore, considering the ground of delay and equity created in favour of the petitioner, this Court has come to the conclusion that the revision is not maintainable after period of four years. He also submitted that the appeal filed by the father - respondent No. 4 has been rejected only on the ground of delay. The appeal filed by the father-respondent No. 4 after period of one and half years meaning thereby after period of 18 months, the appellate authority has not entertained the appeal No. 1052 of 1984 filed by the respondent No. 4 but the very same authority
Gujarat High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 2 - C K Thakker - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next