Gujarat High Court High Court

Giriraj vs Jetpur on 19 July, 2010

Gujarat High Court
Giriraj vs Jetpur on 19 July, 2010
Author: Anant S. Dave,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

SCA/8181/2010	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 8181 of 2010
 

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


 

GIRIRAJ
GAU SEVA TRUST - Petitioner(s)
 

Versus
 

JETPUR
NAVAGADH NAGAR PALIKA & 12 - Respondent(s)
 

============================================= 
Appearance
: 
MR MRUGEN K PUROHIT for
Petitioner(s) : 1, 
None for Respondent(s) : 1 - 6, 6.2.1,
6.2.2,6.2.3 - 13. 
=============================================
 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 19/07/2010 

 

ORAL
ORDER

1. The
challenge in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India by the petitioner is the order dated 18th
October, 2009 passed by learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gondal,
below Exh. 5, by which, the Court has permitted the District
Collector, Rajkot, to remove dilapidated portion of building and
further ordered to carry out wire fencing and to maintain possession
till the final decision of the suit. It is also ordered that the
municipality should not permit any private or public institution to
encroach in the government land.

2. The
above order is assailed by the learned advocate for the petitioner on
the ground that they are in lawful possession and without hearing
them, no such order could have been passed.

3. From
the perusal of the record and the impugned order, it seems that the
petitioner has not taken any remedy under law except impleading them
in the suit proceedings. Further, the record reveals that the
Collector has given notice to all affected parties in the past to
remove dilapidated portion of the building but no heed was paid.

4. In
the above circumstances, it is established that there is a danger
apprehended genuinely about causality on human life if the
dilapidated building is not removed, which cannot be permitted in any
manner by granting any stay in exercise of powers under Article 226
of the Constitution of India.

5. No
case is made out, this petition is rejected.

6. However,
this order will not come in way of the petitioner if the petitioner
prefer to take up any remedy under the law.

[ANANT
S. DAVE, J.]

//smita//+

   

Top