Gujarat High Court High Court

Appearance : vs 2 It on 27 April, 2010

Gujarat High Court
Appearance : vs 2 It on 27 April, 2010
Author: Mr.S.J.Mukhopadhaya,&Nbsp;Honourable Mr.Justice Kureshi,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

LPA/460/2010	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL No. 460 of 2010
 

In


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 18073 of 2007
 

With


 

CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 2745 of 2010
 

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


 

JETHABHAI
NARSINHBHAI VANKAR & ORS
 

Versus
 

SHANKERBHAI
RAMABHAI RATHOD & ORS
 

======================================
 
Appearance : 
MR
MB GANDHI for Appellants 
===================================== 

 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA
		
	
	 
		 
			 

 

			
		
		 
			 

and
		
	
	 
		 
			 

 

			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 27/04/2010 

 

ORAL
ORDER

(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI)

1
Present Appeal is filed by the appellants original petitioners
of Special Civil Application No. 18073 of 2007 against the Common
Judgment and order dated 21.02.2008 passed by the learned Singe
Judge in Special Civil Application No.18073 of 2007 along with
Special Civil Application No.14540 of 2007.

2 It
is the case of the appellants that the agricultural land bearing
Survey No. 445/1, admeasuring 2 acres and 3 gunthas situated in
Village Anklav, Taluka Borsad, belonged to the present
appellants. The respondents, however, claimed tenancy rights upon
the land in question. Learned Mamlatar and ALT, Deputy Collector
and Gujarat Revenue Tribunal found that the respondents were the
tenants of the disputed land.

3 The
learned Single Judge after considering the submissions made on
behalf of the petitioners at length, found no merits in the writ
petitions and dismissed the same.

4 Having
heard learned Advocate for the appellants, we do not see any reason
to interfere with the decision of the learned Single Judge which in
turn confirmed the concurrent findings of facts by three authorities
that the respondents had successfully established their tenancy
rights. Admittedly, we also found that the present appellants had
sold away the suit land during the pendency of the proceedings.
Considering all these aspects of the matter, there is no merit in the
Appeal and the same stands dismissed. Civil Application also stands
disposed of.

(S.J.

MUKHOPADHAYA, C.J.)

(AKIL
KURESHI, J.)

pnnair

   

Top