Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/484/2008 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 484 of 2008
=========================================================
MALIBEN
WD/O RUPSINHBHAI CHAUDHARY - Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 3 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
PS CHAMPANERI for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR HUKUM SINGH ASST GOVERNMENT PLEADER for
Respondent(s) : 1,
None for Respondent(s) : 2 -
4.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
Date
: 21/07/2008
ORAL
ORDER
Heard
learned advocate Mr.P.S.Champaneri for the petitioner and learned AGP
Mr.Hukum Singh for the respondent.
The
petitioner challenges the order dated 09.10.2007 passed by the
Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in Revision Application No.144 of 2001.
The
issue pertains to the agricultural land ceiling. The petitioner is
widow of one Rupsinhbhai Chaudhry. She claims individual share in the
property of her husband along with her son and thus, claims a
separate unit. The Tribunal turned down the contentions observing
that earlier petitioner had approached the High Court and her
petition being Special Civil Application No.9061 of 1991 came to be
dismissed by order dated 08.09.2000 and Letters Patent Appeal being
LPA No.178 of 2001 also came to be dismissed by order dated
21.03.2001.
Learned
advocate Mr.P.S.Champaneri, however, submitted that in the Letters
Patent Appeal, the Division Bench observed that ?SAccording to the
learned counsel, the appellant was never a party to the original
proceedings. It will be open for the appellant to take recourse of
law??.
On
this basis, it was contended that the petitioner had right to assert
her claim before the authorities below independently. It was also
contended that on the appointed date, the husband of the petitioner
having been passed away, her right in the land in question was
crystallized and she had independent individual right to the said
land.
Learned
AGP Mr.Hukum Singh, on the other hand, supported the orders under
challenge.
At
my request, learned advocate Mr.Champaneri has made available for
perusal of the Court the above mentioned two orders passed by the
High Court in the earlier round of litigation pursued by this very
petitioner. The learned Single Judge had considered all the arguments
and contentions of the petitioner and come to the conclusion that the
petitioner has failed to point out that son of the respondent No.4
was major at the time of submission of the prescribed form by the
respondent No.4 before the competent authority. On this basis and on
the basis of the factual parameters, the learned Single Judge was
pleased to reject the petition earlier filed by the petitioner. This
was upheld by the Division Bench in the Letters Patent Appeal as
noted earlier.
No
fresh cause of action has arisen. The Tribunal was, therefore,
justified in not entertaining the grievance of the petitioner and
dismissed the petition. The Letters Patent Appeal Bench also, in my
view, did not intend to give fresh cause of action to the petitioner
which was already not accepted by the learned Single Judge as well as
the Division Bench.
Consequently,
the petition fails and the same is dismissed.
(
Akil Kureshi, J. )
kailash
Top