IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION No 568 of 1996
--------------------------------------------------------------
SHREE SIMANDHAR INDUSTRIAL ESTATE
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
MR PM THAKKAR for Petitioner
MR. B.Y. MANKAD, A.G.P. for therespondents.
--------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : MR.JUSTICE R.R.JAIN
Date of Order: 10/02/97
ORAL ORDER
Heard Mr. Kavina, learned Advocate for the
petitioner.
The petitioner – plaintiff filed Civil Suit
No.305/87 for injunction restraining the respondents from
acquiring the suit land and for declaration that the
respondents be restrained from declaring the award
thereof. The petitioner also prayed for interim relief.
But the Court below did not grant any relief. After
hearing both the parties, vide order dated 24-11-1988 the
Trial Court was pleased to refuse interim relief and also
discharged the notice. The order passed by the Trial
Court was challenged by preferring Misc.. Civil Appeal
No.50/89 and the Lower Appellate Court has also dismissed
the appeal vide order dated 18-1-1991. Being aggrieved
by this order, the petitioner – plaintiff has filed this
Revision Application.
I have heard the learned Advocates for the
parties and perused the impugned order. I am in complete
agreement with the Lower Appellate Court which has held
that the suit itself is not maintainable since the
Notification issued u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was
not challenged by the petitioner. On the face of it, it
appears that the plaintiff was not the owner and/or
occupier of the land in question on the date when the
Notification u/s 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act were
issued consequently could not be said to be interested
person. Therefore, when the suit filed by the petitioner
was not maintainable the question of granting interim
relief does not arise. In view of these facts, the Trial
Court was fully justified in refusing interim relief.
As evident from the impugned order the property
in question has already been transferred to the third
party who can be said to be now interested in the said
property. Therefore, if law permits the third party may
move the appropriate authority for appropriate relief.
Under these circumstances, the application being
devoid of merit, it is hereby rejected.
Date:-10-2-1997.(R. R. Jain, J.)