MCA/2582/2005 4/ 4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD MISC.CIVIL APPLICATION - FOR CONTEMPT No. 2582 of 2005 In FIRST APPEAL No. 491 of 1981 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI ===================================================== 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ===================================================== BAVABHAI KARSANBHAI PATEL - Applicant(s) Versus MONA KHANDAR - Opponent(s) ==================================================== Appearance : MR BR GUPTA for Applicant MR K.B.TRIVEDI, ADVOCATE GENERAL with MS.SANGITA VISHEN, AGP for Opponent ===================================================== CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI Date : 23/06/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL)
The
present petition is preferred for breach and disobedience to the
order dated 1.11.2001 in First Appeal No.491/81 whereby the appeal
was partly allowed and it was declared that the plaintiff who is the
petitioner-herein is the owner of 1 acre and 8 gunthas of vonkla
blank land and vonkla land automatically vested in the Government.
The basis of the petition is that after the order passed by this
Court in the First Appeal, revenue entry came to be mutated by the
Mamlatdar, against which in the revision proceedings before the
District Collector, the entry based on the judgment of this Court has
not only set aside, but a different findings were recorded which
may result into nullifying the rights accrued in favour of the
petitioner as per the decree and therefore, disobedience to the
judgment of this Court.
2. We
have heard Mr.Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.
Trivedi, learned AG appearing with Ms.Sangita Vishen, learned AGP for
the State Authorities.
3. After
some arguments, learned AG declared before the Court that as per the
District Collector, the petitioner suppressed certain factual
aspects of having already disposed of the land which was part of the
subject matter of the suit and therefore in view of the said
position, the Collector has acted in bonafide exercise of power.
However, he submitted that since the Collector, Rajkot was one of the
parties to the proceedings and the Mamlatdar mutated the entry based
on the judgment of this Court and in view of the aforesaid factual
position of having already disposed of the land by the petitioner
prior and pending the suit and the possession of the land was also
parted with to some extent, the details whereof are mentioned in the
order which is the basis of the present petition, the said order
passed by the Collector, Rajkot shall stand withdrawn with a view to
enable him to move an appropriate application in the proceedings of
the First Appeal, by resorting to appropriate remedy.
4. In
view of the above declaration, the order of the District Collector
dated 9.11.2005-29.10.2005 which is the basis of the petition shall
not survive. Accordingly the present contempt proceedings are not
required to be continued further. Hence the proceedings are dropped
and disposed of accordingly with liberty to the Collector to move
appropriate application in the proceedings of First Appeal
No.491/81, as available in law. It is clarified that if such
application is made, rights and contentions of both sides in the
aforesaid proceedings shall remain open and shall not get prejudiced
in view of the order passed in the present proceedings. Rule is
discharged. No order as to costs.
(Jayant
Patel, J.)
(Akil
Kureshi, J.)
(vjn)