Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/5985/1992 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 5985 of 1992
=========================================================
JETHUSINH
UDESINH - Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
NOTICE
SERVED for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MS CHETANA M. SHAH, Learned ASSISTANT
GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent(s) : 1 -
2.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ
Date
: 02/03/2010
ORAL
ORDER
1. The
petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, praying for quashing and setting aside the
judgment and order dated 13.02.1992 passed by the Gujarat Revenue
Tribunal in Appeals Nos.TEN.A.A.31/84 and 8/90 and also praying for
the remand of the matter to the Officer on special duty, Private
Forests Acquisition, for determining the amount of compensation for
trees to be paid to the petitioner.
2. The
petition was admitted on 04.02.1994.
3. On
26.02.2007 this Court has passed an order fixing the matter for
final hearing on 28.03.2007 with a clear stipulation that the
petitioner would be required to appear in person or through some
representative on the said date and in case he does not appear, the
Court would dismiss the petition. The Court has also directed office
to issue the notice to the petitioner. Thereafter on 07.05.2009,
fresh notice was issued to the petitioner as the petitioner’s
advocate Mr.B.J.Jadeja expired. The fresh notice was duly served on
petitioner and the Registrar (Judicial) has passed an order that the
matter was ready and intimation was given to the petitioner about
fixing up the matter for final hearing. Till this date, no appearance
is filed on behalf of the petitioner. Today also, neither the
petitioner nor anybody appears on behalf of the petitioner. The Court
is therefore of the view that the petitioner might have lost his
interest in further prosecuting this petition.
4. The
petition is, therefore, dismissed for want of prosecution. Rule is
discharged. No order as to costs.
(K.
A. PUJ, J)
~gaurav~
Top