Gujarat High Court High Court

Abdul vs State on 24 November, 2010

Gujarat High Court
Abdul vs State on 24 November, 2010
Author: Jayant Patel,&Nbsp;Honourable S.R.Brahmbhatt,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

SCA/1315/2010	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 1315 of 2010
 

 
=========================================================


 

ABDUL
VAHAB ABDUL GAFAR KAPADIYA - Petitioner
 

Versus
 

STATE
OF GUJARAT & 3 - Respondents
 

=========================================================
Appearance : 
MR
RR MARSHALL WITH MR TULSHI R SAVANI
for Petitioner 
MR PRANAV
TRIVEDI AGP for Respondent: 1, 
NOTICE SERVED for Respondent: 1 -
4. 
MR UDAY JOSHI FOR M/S TRIVEDI & GUPTA for Respondent:
4, 
=========================================================


 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL
		
	
	 
		 
		 
			 

and
		
	
	 
		 
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 16/11/2010 

 

 
 
ORAL
ORDER

(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL)

Heard
Mr. Marshall with Mr. Savani, learned advocate for the petitioner
and Mr. Pranav Trivedi, learned AGP for respondent No.1 and Mr. Uday
Joshi, learned advocate for respondent No.4-GIDC.

It
prima-facie appears that in one of the daily news paper namely
‘Divya Bhaskar’ while publishing the Notification under Section 4,
the land of the petitioner bearing Survey No. 649 is not mentioned,
whereas, the contention of the respondent is that it was by way of
an omission. Whether it could be said as a mandatory requirement or
not, which can be concluded at the time of final hearing. Further
for maintaining the period of one year from the date of publication
of the Notification under Section 4, while publishing notification
under Section 6 of the Act, if the last date is considered, it can
be prima-facie said as beyond the period of one year, for which,
there is no answer submitted uptil now. Therefore, whether the same
also would be fetal to the acquisition proceedings or not, would
also be a question to be finalized.

Hence
Rule. Ad-interim relief granted earlier shall continue as
interim relief.

(JAYANT
PATEL, J.)

(S.R.BRAHMBHATT,
J)

pallav

   

Top