IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 2045 of 1997
--------------------------------------------------------------
ANER HAJA JIVA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
MR PN BAVISHI for Petitioners
MR HARIN P RAVAL for Respondent No. 6
--------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : MR.JUSTICE R.R.JAIN
Date of Order: 11/04/97
ORAL ORDER
Heard learned Advocates. On perusal of the
affidavit-in-reply filed by respondent No.6 it clearly
transpires that, for the same subject-matter, Special
Civil Applications Nos.412 of 1996 and 4602 of 1996 were
also filed by villagers of the same village and that
these petitions came to be withdrawn unconditionally.
Copies of such orders are produced at pages 126 and 129.
Special Civil Application No.412 of 1996 was filed by
Kanubhai Kubhabhai Vagh and three others and were
represented by learned Advocate Mr. A.J.Shastri whereas
Special Civil Application No.4602 of 1996 was filed by
Devayat Mansi Vala and four others and were represented
by Mr. P.N.Bavishi. Both these petitions came to be
withdrawn unconditionally. The present petitioners have
denied their relationship with the petitioners of earlier
two petitions but, on perusal of documents, it appears
that all the persons are closely related and connected
with each other and the present petition is also filed in
collusion with each other. Thus, the act of petitioners
in initiating proceedings one after another either under
one or other pretext, form and before forum is a clear
abuse of process of court. Moreover, the contents of the
petition run counter to the documentary evidence produced
on record by respondent No.6. During the course of
arguments, Mr. Bavishi has made a statement before the
court that the petition is filed keeping in mind the
public interests and the petitioners do not have any
personal interests except right of grazing cattles. It
is also made clear by Mr.Bavishi that none of the
petitioners claims any right of possession, occupation or
has caused any encroachment on the land in question.
Despite this statement, Civil Suit No.1 of 1997 filed on
1.1.1997 clearly suggests that closely related persons of
the petitioners claim right of possession qua the land in
question and prayed for protection against respondents.
It further suggests that the petitioners and companions
are bent upon to abuse the process of court with ulterior
motive and to circumvent the object for which Resolution
was passed by the Panchayat on 5.6.1991 and consequential
order by the Government through Mining Department, on
7.2.1995 followed by execution of lease agreement on
2.2.1996. The evidence on record is so eloquent that
some of the signatories of resultion as member of
Panchayat have also initiated proceedings only to suggest
ulterior motive.
2.Thus, since the petition on the face of it
appears to have been filed with ulterior motive, does not
warrant exercise of extraordinary discretionary
jurisdiction and deserves rejection. With a view to
discourage abuse of process of court, in my view, such
rejection should be coupled with exemplary costs, hence I
pass the following order;
Petition is rejected. Each of the petitioners is
directed to pay Rs.2,000/- (rupees two thousand)
as costs within two weeks from today failing
which the Collector of Junagadh is directed to
recover the same as arrears of land revenue. A
copy of this order be forwarded to the Collector
of Junagadh.
11th April 1997 ( R.R.Jain, J.)