Gujarat High Court High Court

Shah vs State on 16 March, 2011

Gujarat High Court
Shah vs State on 16 March, 2011
Author: M.R. Shah,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

SCA/10968/2010	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 10968 of 2010
 

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


 

SHAH
NARENDRA MAGANLAL - Petitioner
 

Versus
 

STATE
OF GUJARAT THROUGH SECRETARY & 4 - Respondents
 

======================================
Appearance : 
MR
SP MAJMUDAR for the Petitioner.  
MS JIRGHA JHAVERI, AGP for
Respondent(s) : 1, 
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for Respondent(s) : 1, 
DS
AFF.NOT FILED (N) for Respondent(s) : 2, 
MR ASHISH H SHAH for
Respondent(s) : 3 - 4. 
MR JITENDRA M PATEL for Respondent(s) :
5, 
====================================== 

 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 16/03/2011 

 

ORAL
ORDER

1. Mr.S.P.Majmudar,
learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner seeks
permission to withdraw the present petition as now the petitioner
proposes to challenge the order dated 30/11/1983 passed by the
Competent Authority declaring 53.91 sq.mtrs. of land out of land
bearing Survey No.48/1 paiki, Plot No.3 paiki, as excess vacant land,
which came to be subsequently confirmed by the Appellate Tribunal
vide order dated 19/08/1997 passed in Appeal No.97/1984 as well as
State Government vide order dated 21/02/1997 passed u/s.34 of ULC Act
in respect of the aforesaid land; the impugned communication of
Collector, Rajkot dated 26/05/2010 as well as impugned order passed
by the Collector, Rajkot dated 15/03/2005.

2. Without
expressing anything on merits with respect to maintainability and/or
entertainablility of the petition that may be now filed by the
petitioner challenging the earlier orders passed by the Competent
Authority; Appellate Tribunal; as well as the State Government u/s.34
of the ULC Act, the petitioner is simply permitted to withdraw the
present petition with a liberty to file a fresh petition. As and when
such a petition is filed, the same shall be considered in accordance
with law and on merits, and inclusive of contention on behalf of the
respondents herein with respect to entertainability / maintainability
of such a petition. Notice is discharged. No costs.

[M.R.SHAH,J]

*dipti

   

Top