Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/10350/2008 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 10350 of 2008
=================================================
SANTABEN
MANEKBHAI RESHAMWALA - Petitioner
Versus
NIKIBEN
@ NANIBEN WD/O DURLABHBHAI KESHAVBHAI PATEL & 4 - Respondents
=================================================
Appearance :
MR
AJ PATEL for Petitioners : 1, 1.2.1, 1.2.2, 1.2.3, 1.2.4, 1.2.5,1.2.6
MR ASPI M KAPADIA for Respondent: 1,
MR. H.K. PATEL, LD. AGP
for Respondent : 2,
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for Respondents : 2 -
5.
MR AS VAKIL for Respondent:
5,
=================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT
Date
: 08/07/2011
ORAL
ORDER
This
matter was in fact heard on earlier occasions and Mr. Kapadia who
appears for respondent no.1 was present in the Court. Thereafter
matter was listed for atleast three occasions. On all the three
occasions unfortunately Mr. Kapadia could not remain present. The
Court has, therefore, heard Shri Patel.
The
petitioner in this petition has challenged the order dated 11/7/2008
passed by Gujarat Revenue tribunal, Ahmedabad, in revision
Application No. TEN/BS/176/2006 on the ground that the authorities
have passed the order without appreciating the fact that important
amendment lifting restrictions of purchaser having land within 8
kilometers vicinity was on the book since 1995 and it was given
appropriate effect in the year 2000 itself. The proceedings
initiated in the year 1996 could not have been initiated dehors the
provisions of law and hence without appreciating this aspect in its
proper perspective the impugned order is passed by Mamlatdar &
ALT. Learned AGP could not point out anything contrary to law.
Therefore this Court is of the view that the matter deserves
consideration. Hence RULE, returnable on 6/9/2011.
The
ad-interim relief of maintaining status-quo by all, including the
petitioner is required to be granted or else the land would change
hands and new equities may come up. In order to avoid multiplicity
of proceedings, balance is required to be struck, which persuades
this Court to make order of status-quo, where under even present
petitioner is also restricted from changing position and the status
quo is therefore required to be maintained by all.
[
S.R. BRAHMBHATT, J ]
/vgn
Top