Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/9914/2008 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 9914 of 2008
=========================================================
BHATT
HARISHCHANDRA RATILAL & 7 - Petitioner(s)
Versus
TALATI
- CUM - MANTRI & 3 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR
DR BHATT for Petitioner(s) : 1 - 8.
None for
Respondent(s) : 1,3 - 4.
MR JV JAPEE for Respondent(s) :
2,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
Date
: 01/08/2008
ORAL
ORDER
1. Petitioners
are residence of Himatnagar town. In this petition, petitioners have
challenged an order dated 11.7.2008 passed by the Appellate Committee
of Himatnagar District Panchyat. By the said order, objections of the
petitioners to the N.A. Permission granted with respect to the piece
of land on which respondent No.4 has erected tower for Mobile Phone
came to be turned down.
2. In
the impugned order, Appellate Committee has clearly observed that as
per the Government circular dated 5.12.2001, telephone services
included in the service industry and it is further provided that
whenever companies involved in such service industry acquired lands,
the same shall be treated as industrial use and Collector should
grant deemed N.A. Permission.
3. From
the materials on record, it appears that the Mobile tower has already
been erected some time back. Before the Appellate Committee, it was
also pointed out that some of the members of the Panchayat who had
never objected to such Mobile tower, were also shown as appellants.
4. Learned
advocate, Shri J.V.Japee, for the respondent No.4 appearing on Caveat
submitted that petitioner had initially filed Civil Suit but when
they fail to get an injunction, they have approached this Court.
Learned advocate, Shri Bhatt, for the petitioners stated that suit
stand as withdrawn. Be that as it may, I see no reason to interfere
with the orders passed by the Appellate Committee. In view of the
circular dated 5.12.2001 and provisions contained in Section 65B and
48 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code. The Appellate Committee was
justified in not preventing respondent No.4 further from operation
the mobile tower.
5. The
petition, therefore, fails. However, if there is any breach, it is
open for the Collector to inquire about the same.
6. Subject
to above observations, the petition is dismissed.
(AKIL
KURESHI, J.)
ashish//
Top