Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/7192/2011 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 7192 of 2011
=========================================================
RAMBHAI
VAJSURBHAI VAGH - Petitioner
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT THROUGH THE SECRETARY & 3 - Respondents
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR
KAMAL M SOJITRA for
Petitioner: 1,
MS MINI NAIR AGP for Respondent : 1,
None for
Respondents : 2 -
4.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT
Date
: 22/07/2011
ORAL
ORDER
Heard
Mr. Sojitra, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner.
The
petitioner has, by way of this petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, challenged the order dated 27.8.2010 passed
by respondent no. 2 nullifying the entry Nos. 1033 and 1278 as it
was based upon the misconception of ownership of the land in
question.
The
petitioner, through his advocate, has contended that the land in
question is in possession of the petitioner since years and the
ancestor of the petitioner were given 10 agricultural lands as
Girashdar by Old Junagadh State vide Deed No.69/1973 dated
08.01.1917 and the father of petitioner was also declared as
Girashdar by Mamlatdar, Rajula vide order dated 30.12.1958. The
husband of respondent no.3 was also declared as Girashdar. No
actions were initiated by any authority against them. The action of
issuance of notice and inviting reply thereof from concerned Talati
smacks malafide action on the part of the State, as the Private
Company located in surrounding is interested in getting the land in
question. The haste on the part of authority is sufficient to
discourage the petitioner from taking out appropriate remedy
available under law.
This
Court is unable to accept the submission of learned advocate for the
petitioner and this petition in my view, deserves to be dismissed on
account of availability of alternative remedy. The apprehension
sought to be made basis for avoiding alternative remedy is not made
out in any manner by the petitioner. The petitioner is at absolute
liberty to move the concerned authority with appropriate application
for interim relief also, as at this stage, if the petition is
entertained, containing challenge to the order dated 27.8.2010 on
the apprehension, which is made out, then, it would amount to
permitting the petitioner to bye-pass the alternative remedy, which
would not be in the interest of justice. Had there been a genuine
apprehension with regard to malafide intention, than, the petitioner
would not wait in taking action, as the impugned order is dated
27.8.2010. The reasoning given by the petitioner’s advocate for not
approaching the Court that the order was not received, is also not
acceptable, as the petitioner cannot be now permitted to say that
the order had been served lately upon the petitioner. Be that as it
may. This need not detain the court longer on this aspect. Suffice
it to say that the petition is bereft of merits, and is not required
to be entertained, the same deserves to be dismissed. Hence, it is
dismissed. No costs.
(S.R.BRAHMBHATT,
J.)
pallav
Top