Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/1429/2010 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 1429 of 2010
=========================================================
ASLAM
FARIDBHAI GHASLETWALA & 1 - Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 3 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
PINAKIN B RAVAL for
Petitioner(s) : 1 - 2.
MR M R MENGDE, ASST.GOVERNMENT PLEADER for
Respondent(s) : 1,
None for Respondent(s) : 2 - 4, 4.2.1, 4.2.2,
4.2.3,4.2.4
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
Date
: 16/02/2010
ORAL
ORDER
By
way of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,
the petitioners – subsequent purchasers have prayed for
appropriate writ, order and/or direction quashing and setting aside
the impugned judgement and order dtd.23/3/2001 passed by the Gujarat
Revenue Tribunal, Ahmedabad in Revision Application No.688 of 1991
whereby the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal has
rejected revision application filed by the erstwhile owner
Yakubbhai Nurmohammadbhai Ghasletwala confirming the order
dtd.29/10/1991 passed by the respondent No.3 Dy.Collector in
Appeal No.138 of 1990, thereby confirming the order dtd.25/10/1989
passed by the respondent No.2 Mamlatdar and ALT, City Taluka.
At
the outset, it is required to be noted that so far as the
petitioners are concerned, they have not locus to challenge the
impugned order dtd.23/3/2001 passed by the Gujarat
Revenue Tribunal in revision Application No.688
of 1991, as admittedly the petitioners have purchased the land in
question only on 15/2/2008. A subsequent purchasers petitioners
have no locus to challenge the order passed by the Gujarat
Revenue Tribunal which was passed against the
original land owner from whom the petitioners have purchased the
land in question, more particularly when the erstwhile owner has not
challenged the aforesaid judgement and order passed by the learned
Gujarat
Revenue Tribunal.
It
is to be noted that the erstwhile owner has expired only in the
month of March, 2008. Therefore, even if the erstwhile owner would
have alive and would have challenged the aforesaid judgement order
passed by the Gujarat
Revenue Tribunal, then also the same was required to be dismissed on
the ground of delay and laches.
For
the reasons stated above, there is no substance in the present
petition, which deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly
dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall
be no order as to costs.
[M.R.
SHAH, J.]
rafik
Top