Gujarat High Court High Court

Dinesh vs State on 28 July, 2008

Gujarat High Court
Dinesh vs State on 28 July, 2008
Author: Akil Kureshi,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

SCA/9692/2008	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 9692 of 2008
 

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

 

DINESH
LALLUBHAI PATEL & 5 - Petitioner(s)
 

Versus
 

STATE
OF GUJARAT & 2 - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================================
 
Appearance
: 
MR
PR NANAVATI for
Petitioner(s) : 1 - 6. 
MR SATYAM CHHAYA ASST GOVERNMENT PLEADER
for Respondent(s) : 1, 
None for Respondent(s) : 2 -
3. 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 28/07/2008 

 

 
ORAL
ORDER

In
so far as the impugned order passed by the Secretary (Appeals),
Revenue Department, Government of Gujarat is concerned, I see no
interference is called for. In the said order (Annexure-A), it is
clearly outlined the manner in which previously the petitioners had
not availed the opportunity of paying premium for regularisation of
their unauthorised occupation. The offer of the petitioner to pay
premium earlier fixed at Rs.31,460/- with interest also cannot be
accepted. Since the said figure was arrived at long back and at the
relevant point of time, the petitioners were not ready and willing to
pay the said price. Even after adding interest thereon, in the facts
of the present case, possession of the petitioners cannot be
regularised.

The
Secretary in terms has provided that regularisation can be done in
the event the petitioner is ready to pay the current market price,
and in such case, the order of the Collector was therefore required
interference.

As
noted earlier, I am not inclined to interfere with the order passed
by the Secretary (Appeals), the said order was passed in April, 2008.
However, little relaxation can be given to the petitioners in case
the petitioners are ready to abide by the directives in the said
order of the Secretary to pay premium at the current market price. If
they so desirous, they may approach the authority by giving clear
undertaking in this respect. If such a representation is made within
two weeks hereof, the Collector shall decide the premium at the
prevailing market price and all other leviable charges which the
petitioners shall have to pay.

With
above observations, the petition is disposed of.

(
Akil Kureshi, J. )

kailash

   

Top