Loading...

Chimanlal vs State on 18 January, 2010

Gujarat High Court
Chimanlal vs State on 18 January, 2010
Author: Ks Jhaveri,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

SCA/17704/2006	 1/ 6	JUDGMENT 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 17704 of 2006
 

 
For
Approval and Signature:  
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
 
=========================================================

 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

1
		
		 
			 

Whether
			Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? Yes
		
	

 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

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 ?
		
	

 

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

 

CHIMANLAL
NAGINDAS TAILOR - Petitioner(s)
 

Versus
 

STATE
OF GUJARAT & 3 - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================================
 
Appearance
: 
MR
UTPAL M PANCHAL for
Petitioner(s) : 1, 
MR RASHESH A RINDANI AGP for Respondent(s) : 1
- 3. 
MR KK TRIVEDI for Respondent(s) :
4, 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 18/01/2010 

 

 
ORAL
JUDGMENT

1.
By way of present petition, the petitioner has prayed to quash and
set aside the order dated 30.03.1999 passed by respondent No.3-
Managing Officer and Deputy Collector, Surat and order dated
16.06.2001 passed by respondent No.2- the Settlement Commissioner/
Collector, Surat and order dated 12.10.2001 passed by respondent No.1
and also to hold the earlier decision of the respondent No.3 granting
piece of land for residence of the petitioner.

2. The
facts of the case of the petitioner that he was allotted land by
respondent No.2- Managing Officer after inquiry and after following
the legal procedure under the provisions of Displaced persons
(Compensation and Rehabilitation ) Act, 1954. The respondent No.3-
had preferred an appeal to the respondent No. 1 which was allowed by
cancelling the allotment of the land made in favour of the petitioner
vide order dated 27.12.1996.Against the order dated 27.12.1996, the
petitioner preferred Special Civil Application No. 102 of 1997 before
this Court. This Court vide order dated 19.06.1997 remanded the
matter to the respondent No. 2 with certain specific directions. In
pursuance of the order of this Court, the respondent No. 2 vide order
dated 24.11.1997 remanded the matter to respondent No.3. The
respondent No. 3 again allowed the appeal of the respondent No.4 and
the demand of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated
30.03.1999. The petitioner again preferred appeal under Section 22 of
the Act before respondent No.2 against the order of respondent No. 3
which was rejected and the respondent No.2 confirmed the order passed
by the respondent No.3. The petitioner again challenged the order of
the respondent No.2 before this Court by way of preferring Special
Civil Application No. 4964 of 2001. This court directed the
respondent No.1 to decide the representation of the petitioner in the
present case. The petitioner made representation before the
respondent No.1 which was rejected by an order dated 12.10.2001 by
the respondent No.1. The petitioner again preferred Special Civil
Application No. 10213 of 2001 before this Court which was withdrawn
with a view to file Review Application . The petitioner filed a Misc.
Civil Application No. 533 of 2004 and the same was rejected by this
Court. The petitioner filed Misc. Civil Application (Stamp) No. 757
of 2005 for review/recalling the order passed in Special Civil
Application No. 10213 of 2001 along with application for condonation
of delay. Both these applications were disposed of with a liberty to
file a fresh substantive petition. Hence, this petition.

3. Mr.

Panchal, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted he is not
contesting the matter on merits, but is making request that the
petitioner is a poor person having no residential accommodation in
the city of Surat. The petitioner is residing in a 10’x12′ room with
his family members since last 25 years and is earning his bread by
doing tailoring work. Therefore, the allotment made to the petitioner
was in consonance with the law of the society. He further submitted
that if the authorities are allowed to exercise their powers, the
petitioner will suffer irreparable loss which cannot be compensated
in terms of money or any other manner.

3.1 Learned
advocate for the petitioner further submitted that as per the
Resolution of the State Government, the land can be allotted to the
non-displaced persons who are poor and who do not have their own
residential accommodation and who is not able to purchase the
residential accommodation at the market rate and after the proper
inquiry the officer has allotted the land not only to the petitioner
but other about 95 non-displaced persons also have been allotted
pieces of lands in past since the year 1971.

4. Mr.

Rindani, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent
submitted that the Managing Officer has alloted the room to 95
non-displaced persons. The open plot has not been allotted to those
95 non-displaced persons. The plot allotted to the petitioner is not
given to the petitioner as per the rules and it is also not given by
public auction. Hence, petitioner is not entitled for allotment of
land.

5. As
a result of hearing and on perusal of the record it is found that 95
non-displaced persons were allotted the open plot. It is also found
that Rule 91(8) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and
Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 is only for the property which was given
through tender in public auction wherein in the present case, the
petitioner was not alloted the land as per tender and as per rule.
Hence, he is not entitled for the same. The view taken by the
respondent-authority is just and proper and the petition is devoid of
merits. The petition is dismissed. The petition is dismissed
accordingly. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs.

(K.S.JHAVERI,
J.)

niru*

   

Top

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information