Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CA/425/2011 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CIVIL
APPLICATION - FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY No. 425 of 2011
With
MISC.CIVIL
APPLICATION (ST No. 12/2011) No. 1546 of 2011
In
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 1521 of
2010
=================================================
PATEL
NATHABHAI MADHABHAI - Petitioner(s)
Versus
DISTRICT
COLLECTOR & 3 - Respondent(s)
=================================================
Appearance
:
MR
JV JAPEE for Petitioner(s) : 1,
GOVERNMENT PLEADER for
Respondent(s) : 1,
None for Respondent(s) : 2 -
4.
=================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER
Date
: 17/06/2011
ORAL
ORDER
(Per
: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA)
The
review application has been preferred along with a petition for
condonation of delay of 120 days in preferring the review
application. Prayer has been made to review the order dated 11th
August 2010 passed by this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1521 of
2010. Further prayer has been made to regularize the possession of
the land out of Survey No.533 Paiki on the basis of the laid down
policy. However, when the matter was taken up, learned counsel for
the petitioner submitted that there is a typographical error to the
extent that the petitioner has encroached over 1416 sqmt. of land,
whereas in the order sheet it has been shown that the petitioner has
encroached over Survey No. 1416. Mrs. Manisha Lavkumar Shah, learned
A.G.P. appearing on behalf of the respondents on the other hand
submits that there is no such prayer to make necessary correction of
typographical error in the order in question. Even learned Single
Judge in the order dated 28th July 2009 passed in Special Civil
Application No. 6625 of 2009 noticed that the petitioner has
encroached over Survey No.1416. The Collector also in the order
dated 19th June 2000 has observed that the petitioner has made
encroachment over Survey No.1416.
From
the petition for condonation of delay it will be evident that a vague
statement has been made in paragraph no.2 in the grounds for
condonation of delay as under:
“The
applicant respectfully states that the Advocate who had referred the
matter to the Advocate for the High Court was suffering from serious
ailment and was undergoing treatment and therefore the Advocate for
the applicant could inform about the order passed by this Hon’ble
Court only on 16.11.2010. The applicant is residing in an interior
village and the Advocate for the High Court was not having the
contact of the applicant and therefore the Advocate could not
communicate the order passed by this Hon’ble Court to the applicant.
However, the Advocate who had referred the matter to the Advocate for
the High Court could be contacted on 16.11.2010 only. After perusing
the order, it was found that appropriate review application is
required to be filed. Ultimately the present Miscellaneous Civil
Application could be filed on 10.1.11 resulting into delay of 120
days in filing the said Miscellaneous Civil Application for review
which deserves to be condoned in the interest of justice.”
This
apart, as we find that in all the documents it has been shown that
the petitioner has encroached Survey No. 1416, the question of
typographical error does not arise. As we are not satisfied with the
grounds shown for condonation of delay, the Civil Application is
dismissed. Consequently, the petition for review is also dismissed
being barred by limitation. However, this order shall not stand in
the way of the petitioner to seek for necessary correction either
before the competent authority or Court in the order, if it is shown
that the petitioner has not encroached over Survey No.1416, but
encroached over an area of 1416 sqmts. in Survey No.533.
(S.J.
MUKHOPADHAYA, C.J.)
(K.M.
THAKER, J.)
[sn
devu] pps
Top