Gujarat High Court High Court

Bipinbhai vs Divisional on 13 July, 2010

Gujarat High Court
Bipinbhai vs Divisional on 13 July, 2010
Author: Mr.S.J.Mukhopadhaya,&Nbsp;Honourable Mr.Justice K.M.Thaker,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

CA/5371/2010	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

CIVIL
APPLICATION - 

 

FOR
CONDONATION OF DELAY No. 5371 of 2010
 

In


 

LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL (STAMP NUMBER) No. 982 of 2010
 

In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 14075 of 2008
 

With


 

LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL (STAMP NUMBER) No. 982 of 2010
 

In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 14075 of 2008
 

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


 

BIPINBHAI
DAHYABHAI PARMAR & 1 - Petitioner(s)
 

Versus
 

DIVISIONAL
MANAGER & 1 - Respondent(s)
 

============================================= 
Appearance
: 
MR
BS BRAHMBHATT for Petitioner(s) : 1 - 2. 
None for Respondent(s) :
1 - 2. 
=============================================
 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA
		
	
	 
		 
			 

 

			
		
		 
			 

and
		
	
	 
		 
			 

 

			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 13/07/2010 

 

ORAL
ORDER

(Per
: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA)

Petitioners
challenged order dated 17.3.2006 passed by first respondent, by which
certain land was allotted in favour of second respondent. They also
made prayer for allotment of the said plot. Learned Single Judge by
order dated 27.11.2008 held that petitioners failed to establish that
they had any right to get allotment of the plot. Having found that
there is no infirmity in the allotment order dated 17.3.2006 issued
in favour of first respondent, learned Single Judge rejected the
petition. Apart from the fact that writ petition was filed after two
years of allotment, which was one of the reasons considered by the
learned Single Judge, the present appeal is also filed after a delay
of 501 days. Though application has been filed, delay has not been
explained satisfactorily except stating that petitioners are poor
persons. In the facts and circumstances, we are not inclined to
condone the delay. CA for condonation of delay is rejected.

LPA
(Stamp) No. 982 of 2010:

Appeal
being barred by limitation is dismissed.

(S.J.

Mukhopadhaya, C.J.)

(K.M.

Thaker, J.)

*/Mohandas

   

Top