Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/7790/2008
3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 7790 of 2008
With
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 7791 of 2008
TO
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No.7803 of 2008
=========================================================
PUNJA
DEVA BHARVAD & 13 - Petitioner(s)
Versus
PANARA
DAYABEN VALLABH - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
DR
PRASAD B for Petitioner(s) : 1 - 14.
MR PREMAL
S RACHH for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
Date
: 12/11/2008
ORAL
ORDER
1. This
matter is called out in the First Session, learned Counsel for the
petitioners was absent, therefore, it was kept back. Again when it is
taken up on Second call, learned Counsel for the petitioners is
absent. This matter is placed on Board of Regular Admission and
therefore, this Court has no other alternative but to proceed with
the matter ex-parte.
2. By
way of these petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India, the petitioners ? original plaintiffs have prayed for an
appropriate Writ, direction and/or order quashing and setting aside
the impugned order dated 08.06.2007 passed by the learned Additional
District Judge, Jamnagar in Appeal No.31 of 2007 as well as order
dated 21.04.2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge (SD), Jodiya in
Regular Civil Suit No.199 of 2006 in refusing to grant interim
injunction during the pendency of Regular Civil Suit No.199 of 2006.
3. At
the outset, it is required to be noted that atleast since 08.06.2007
there is no relief in favour of the petitioners. It appears from the
proceedings and the impugned order that all the petitioners are
encroachers who have encroached upon Gauchar land and have put up
illegal construction and notice came to be issued by the Panchayat in
accordance with the provisions of the Gujarat Panchayat Act and at
that stage the plaintiffs instituted aforesaid Suit and prayed for
injunction and both the Courts have concurrently found against the
petitioners that there is no prima-facie case in favour of the
petitioners and that they do not have legal right to continue on the
land in question. Not only that but both the Courts have concurrently
found that the petitioners are not in possession of the suit land in
question and they were removed much earlier. Considering above when
both the Courts have refused to grant any injunction in favour of the
petitioners, same are not required to be interfered with in exercise
of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. There is no
jurisdictional error committed by the both the Courts below refusing
to grant injunction in favour of the petitioners. Hence, there is no
substance in the present Special Civil Applications, same deserves to
be dismissed and accordingly they are dismissed.
[M.R.Shah,J.]
satish
Top