Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
LPA/62920/2006 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL No. 629 of 2006
In
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 5584 of 1986
=========================================================
MOHAN
BHADA AS HEIRS OF BAI MOTI BHADA & 9 - Appellant(s)
Versus
RAJBAIBEN
LAXMANBHAI & 42 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
PV HATHI for
Appellant(s) : 1 - 4, 4.2.1, 4.2.2,4.2.3 - 10, 10.2.1, 10.2.2,10.2.3
DELETED for Respondent(s) : 1 - 2,4 - 5,7 - 8, 23,25 - 26, 29,
31, 33, 35,
MR HM JADEJA for Respondent(s) : 3, 6,10 - 12,
15,
NOTICE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 9,13 - 14,16 - 22, 24,27 -
28, 32,36 -
43.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MS. JUSTICE R.M.DOSHIT
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE SHARAD D.DAVE
Date
: 26/08/2008
ORAL
ORDER
(Per
: HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R.M.DOSHIT)
This
Appeal preferred under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent arises from
the judgment and order dated 21st September, 2005 passed
by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.5584 of
1986.
The
appellants writ petitioners were the tenants of the erstwhile
Girasdar of Kotdapitha. The dispute centres around the claim made by
the respondent Girasdar for allotment of more land for personal
cultivation and the decision of the authority below that the Girasdar
was entitled to retain 80 acres of land. The order of the authority
below has been confirmed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in Revision
Application No.375 of 1977 by judgment and order dated 1st
May, 1986. The learned Tribunal upheld that the Girasdar was entitled
to 80 acres of land. However, ordered the remand of the matter to
ascertain whether the lands of Kharaba and Bid lands would be part of
the land given to the Girasdar for personal cultivation.
Feeling
aggrieved by the finding that the Girasdar was entitled to retain 80
acres of land for personal cultivation, the appellants preferred the
above Special Civil Application No.5584 of 1986 which has been
rejected by the learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment and
order. The learned Single Judge has, relying upon the judgment of
this Court in Special Civil Applications No.305 and 368 of 1962,
confirmed the said finding. Therefore, the present Appeal.
Mr.Hathi
has submitted that the above referred judgment of the High Court
passed in Special Civil Applications No.305 and 368 of 1962 requires
reconsideration. The appeal, therefore, be admitted.
We
are unable to agree with Mr.Hathi. No case for interference is made
out. The Appeal is dismissed in limine. Notice is discharged.
(
Ms.R.M.Doshit, J )
(
Sharad D Dave, J )
srilatha
Top