Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/8456/2011 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 8456 of 2011
=========================================================
RAJENDRABHAI
MAGANBHAI PATEL - Petitioner(s)
Versus
COMMISSIONER
- NARMADA YOJNA CANAL DEPARTMENT & 2 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
BG PATEL for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
None for Respondent(s) : 1 -
3.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE BANKIM.N.MEHTA
Date
: 27/09/2011
ORAL
ORDER
The
petitioner – original plaintiff has filed this petition under
Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and challenged the
order passed by the learned Principal Civil Judge, Shinor on
17.5.2008 below injunction application Exh-5 in Regular Civil Suit
No.25 of 2007 and confirmed by the learned Presiding Officer, Fast
Track Court, Vadodara on 24.2.2011 in Misc. Civil Appeal No.74 of
2008.
2. The
petitioner filed the suit and took out injunction application Exh-5
under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 and section 151 of the CPC for an order
restraining the respondents – defendants from carrying out any
cut canal work in the property bearing survey No.287/2 belonging to
his ownership. The respondents – defendants appeared and
contested the injunction application by filing the reply. After
hearing the learned advocates for the parties, the trial Court
dismissed the injunction application. Therefore, the petitioner –
plaintiff filed appeal in the Court of learned District Judge,
Vadodara by filing Misc. Civil Appeal No.74 of 2008. After hearing
learned advocates for the parties, the first appellate Court
dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order passed by the trial
Court below injunction application Exh-5. Being aggrieved by the
said decision, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of
present petition.
3. I
have heard learned advocate Mr. Patel for the petitioner at length
and in great detail.
4. Learned
advocate Mr. Patel submitted that the respondents have carried out
the canal work on his property, which has caused damage to his
property and therefore, the trial Court committed error in not
granting injunction as prayed for in the injunction application. He
has tried to rely upon the copy of map annexed with the compilation
at page 75 indicating the canal work being carried out.
5. It
appears from the order passed by the trial Court that originally, the
suit land belonged to the ownership of the petitioner and it was
acquired for the purpose of laying down canal and compensation for
such acquisition was paid to the owner i.e. the petitioner. Learned
advocate Mr. Patel has also admitted that the suit land is acquired
by the authority for the purpose of laying down canal and
compensation has been paid to the petitioner and he has received the
same.
6. In
view of above, it is clear that the suit land does not belong to the
petitioner and he ceased to be owner of the same, as the same has
been acquired by the authority. Therefore, the trial Court was
justified in refusing to grant relief claimed in the injunction
application Exh-5 and the first appellate Court committed no error in
confirming the order.
7. In
the above background, I do not find any reason to interfere with the
impugned orders. Learned advocate Mr. Patel has not been able to
point out any infirmity in the impugned orders requiring this Court
to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India.
8. In
the result, the petition fails and stands dismissed with no order as
to costs.
(BANKIM.N.MEHTA,
J.)
shekhar*
Top