Gujarat High Court High Court

Khant vs The on 7 September, 2011

Gujarat High Court
Khant vs The on 7 September, 2011
Author: R.M.Doshit, Honble Kumari,
  
 Gujarat High Court Case Information System 
    
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

SCA/19176/2005	 4/ 4	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 19176 of 2005
 

 


 

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

KHANT
MOHAN KANJI HIER OF DECD.KANJI RANA & 4 - Petitioner(s)
 

Versus
 

THE
STATE OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s)
 

===================================================== 
Appearance
: 
MR PV HATHI for Petitioner(s) :
1 - 5. 
MR MR MENGDEY, AGP for Respondent(s) : 1 
RULE NOT RECD
BACK for Respondent(s) :
2 
=====================================================
 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MS. JUSTICE R.M.DOSHIT
		
	
	 
		 
			 

 

			
		
		 
			 

and
		
	
	 
		 
			 

 

			
		
		 
			 

HON'BLE
			SMT. JUSTICE ABHILASHA KUMARI
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 12/04/2006 

 

ORAL
ORDER

(Per : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R.M.DOSHIT)

This
writ petition has been preferred by the claimants in Land Acquisition
Case No.103 of 1982 filed in the Court of District Judge, Junagadh.

It
appears that against the judgment and award passed in the said Land
Acquisition Case No.103 of 1982 and group of other Land Acquisition
Cases, the State had preferred First Appeals No.1537 to 1542 of 1998
and concerned claimants had preferred First Appeals No.1547 to 1552
of 1988 before this Court. Said group of Appeals came up for hearing
before the Division Bench comprising Hon’ble Mr.Justice J.N.Bhatt
(as he then was) and Hon’ble Mr.Justice J.R.Vora.
The Appeals were decided by a common judgment and order dated 18th
December, 1997. The Appeals preferred by the claimants were
dismissed. The Appeals preferred by the
State were partly allowed. The Registry was directed ?Sto transmit
the writ to the Reference Court forthwith along with the record and
proceedings??. It however appears that the registry has failed to
carry out the aforesaid direction issued to
it.

It
is the claim of the petitioners that while carrying out the aforesaid
direction, the registry did send writ as directed and also the record
and proceedings in connection with other matters, except Land
Acquisition Case No.103 of 1982. It is this failure on the part of
the registry of this Court which has necessitated the present
petition. The petitioners have prayed that the registry be directed
to transmit the record and proceedings of the aforesaid Land
Acquisition Case to the Court below forthwith.

Upon
inquiry made by the Court the registry has, under the signature of
the Section Officer, First Appeal Department and the Deputy Registrar
Ms.P.R.Rawal submitted that the record and proceedings of the Land
Acquisition Case No.103 of 1982 is not traceable in the registry. At
the relevant time, no specific entries were made. It is not known
whether the record and proceedings was received from the Court
below, etc.

In
our opinion, it is the negligence and lethargy on the part of the
registry which has caused untold misery to the petitioners and has
resulted into the present petition. Registry has admitted that, ?Sin
a group matters of First Appeal No.1537 to 1542 of 1988, along with
other R & Ps., the R & P of case No.103 of 1982 (First Appeal
No.1540/88) was received by this Department from Nazir Department??.
Despite the same the Registry has audacity to report that, ?SAs
such from the very beginning, i.e. year 1988, the R&P of Case
No.103/82 missing, but, the entry made in relevant register is not
specific with regard to how many R & P are received in Department
on 12/12/1989, therefore it is very difficult to make a statement
that the R & P of Case No.103/82 was received from the District
Court or not along with the other R & P of First Appeal??.

We
are at pain to note that the Court is unable to render justice in a
just cause, all because of the indifferent and irresponsible attitude
of the registry. This is not a solitary lapse on the part of the
registry. Day in and day out we have been experiencing such lapses in
majority of matters. This undoubtedly calls for a disciplinary action
and also an action so as to avoid repetition of such incidences. As
the Hon’ble the Chief Justice of this High Court is the sole guardian
of the administration, we direct that the matter be placed before the
Hon’ble Acting Chief Justice Mr.Y.R.Meena, forthwith.

(Miss
R.M.Doshit, J.)

(Smt.

Abhilasha Kumari, J.)

(sunil)

   

Top