Gujarat High Court High Court

Appearance : vs 2.5 on 30 June, 2010

Gujarat High Court
Appearance : vs 2.5 on 30 June, 2010
Author: D.H.Waghela,&Nbsp;Honourable Mr.Justice Bankim.N.Mehta,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

SCA/7390/2010	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 7390 of
2010 
 
======================================
 

SAVITABEN
MADHAVLAL PATEL (VAKHARIA) 

 

Versus
 

SPECIAL
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND ANOTHER
 

======================================
 
Appearance : 
MR
KM SHETH for Petitioner Nos.1, 1.2.1, 1.2.2, 1.2.3, 1.2.4,
1.2.5,1.2.6 MR HK PATEL, AGP for Respondent No.1. 
None for
Respondent No.2. 
======================================
 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA
		
	
	 
		 
			 

 

			
		
		 
			 

and
		
	
	 
		 
			 

 

			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE BANKIM.N.MEHTA
		
	

 

Date
: 30/06/2010 

 

ORAL
ORDER

(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BANKIM.N.MEHTA)

1. Heard
learned advocate, Mr.Sheth, for the petitioner.

2. The
petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside order dated 29.1.2010
issued by respondent no.1 rejecting the request of the petitioner to
amend the award and to pay the amount of compensation awarded by the
Special Land Acquisition Officer.

3. Learned
advocate, Mr.Sheth, states that the petitioner has made an
application to the Collector to make a reference to the Court, as the
petitioner has not accepted the award, as provided under Section 18
of the Land Acquisition Act.

4. In
view of the fact that the award passed by competent authority has
been pending for reference to the Court at the instance of the
petitioner, the prayer made by the petitioner in this petition to
amend the award and to pay amount of compensation awarded by the
competent authority cannot be entertained in the writ jurisdiction.
Therefore, the petition is not maintainable at law and cannot be
entertained.

5. In
view of above, the petition fails and stands dismissed.

(D.H.Waghela,
J.)

(Bankim
N.Mehta, J.)

*malek

   

Top