Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/14488/2010 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 14488 of 2010
With
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 14489 of 2010
To
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 14490 of 2010
=========================================================
SHANTUBHAIGIRDHARBHAI
VASAVA - Petitioner
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT THROUGH SECRETARY & 2 - Respondents
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR BUKHARI
FOR MR BB DESAI for
Petitioner
MR PRANAV TRIVEDI AGP for Respondent
None for
Respondents : 2 -
3.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT
Date
: 15/11/2010
COMMON
ORAL ORDER
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL)
On
hearing Mr. Bukhari, learned advocate for Mr. B.B. Desai for the
petitioner, it appears that it is an admitted position that the
issues which arises in the present petitions for consideration are
the same as they were considered by this Court in Special Civil
Application No. 10205 of 2010 and allied mater decided on 30.08.2010
and subsequent applications for review being Misc. Civil Application
No. 2563 of 2010 and allied matters decided on 26.10.2010.
We
may record that this Court (Coram: D.H. Waghela & S.R.
Brahmbhatt, JJ..) vide order dated 30.08.2010 in Special Civil
Application No. 10205 of 2010 and allied matters had observed thus:
All
the petitions are filed by a group of petitioners challenging the
consent awards of Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bharuch, on the
grounds that the petitioners were illiterate and poor landholders,
who were carried away by misrepresentation of respondent nos.2 and
3. It was vehemently argued by Mr.Bukhari for Mr.B.B.Desai,
learned counsel for the petitioners that the lands are acquired for
mining lignite which is a valuable mineral and the petitioners
were deprived of real value of the land lost by them due to
acquisition. It was fairly conceded that all the petitioners were
not Adivasi, poor or illiterate and the proceedings for acquisition
of the land had started in the year 2003 and were concluded by the
awards in early 2008. No legal provision was even alleged to have
been violated. Under the circumstances, the petitions clearly
appear to be a belated attempt at reneging on the consent award for
extracting some additional amount by way of compensation. It being
not permissible under the law, the petitions are summarily
dismissed.
Further,
in the Review Application being Misc. Civil Application No. 2563 of
2010 and allied matters, vide order dated 26.10.2010, it was
observed as under :
1. Learned
counsel Mr. B.B.Desai straightaway requested to grant prayer at
paragraph 8(C) and submitted that if even that prayer cannot be
granted, the applicants may be permitted to make a representation
directly to the State Government to voice their grievances. He
fairly conceded that the other contentions contained in the
applications for review could not legally be entertained, as
entertainment of those contentions would amount to hearing an
appeal from the order sought to be reviewed.
2. Learned
counsel was also candid in admitting that he could not hear any of
the queries of the Court and hence could not reply to them. It
appears from the record that the Court has consciously and with
necessary observations dismissed the petitions on the basis that the
original petitioners had admittedly obtained consent award in the
year 2008. It clearly appears from the present prayer of the
petition, which has been pressed that the applicants are desperately
trying to open a new vista for reagitating their untenable claims on
the basis of some observations which are invited in the present
order.
3. We
do not approve the practice of moving the government with
representations after a decision is rendered on judicial side.
Therefore, the applications restricted to prayer 8(C) are dismissed
with the observations that the averments and allegations made in the
rest of the applications are improper and not expected from an
advocate of the standing of learned counsel Mr. B.B.Desai.
Learned
advocate for the petitioner is not in a position to show any
distinguishing circumstances for not applying aforesaid decision in
the present case.
When
the similar matters are already decided by the another Bench of this
Court, wherein, one of us was a Party, it is not open for us to take
a different view than the view taken by the earlier Bench as per the
above referred decision.
Hence
all the petitions deserve to be dismissed. Hence dismissed.
(JAYANT
PATEL, J.)
(S.R.BRAHMBHATT,
J.)
pallav
Top