Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/9954/2010 2/ 2 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 9954 of 2010
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
=========================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2
To
be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
=========================================
MUKESHBHAI
JAGDISHBHAI SHARMA & 4 - Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT THROUGH COLLECTOR & 5 - Respondent(s)
=========================================
Appearance :
MS
RV ACHARYA for
Petitioner(s) : 1 - 5.
MR PRANAV DAVE, AGP for Respondent(s) : 1 -
2
None for Respondent(s) : 3 -
6.
=========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
Date
: 26/08/2010
ORAL
JUDGMENT
1. RULE.
Shri Pranav Dave, learned AGP
waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondents nos. 1 and
2.
2. It
is an admitted position that though required, seven days notice has
not been given to the petitioners before demolishing some portion of
the construction. It appears from the impugned notice dated
10/08/2010 that seven days time was granted/seven days notice was
issued, however, seven is corrected to three. The aforesaid is not
satisfactorily explained. Be that as it may. It cannot be disputed
that before any action is taken under Section 202 of the Bombay Land
Revenue Code, seven days notice is required to given. Under the
circumstances, the impugned notice/communication dated 10/08/2010 is
hereby quashed and set aside. It will be open for the Mamlatdar,
Vadodara to initiate appropriate proceedings under Section 202 of the
Bombay Land Revenue Code in accordance with law on its own merits
after giving reasonable time to the petitioners to respond to the
same. Till then, parties are directed to maintain status-quo as on
today. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
Direct
service is permitted.
(M.R.
SHAH, J.)
siji
Top