Gujarat High Court High Court

The vs Assistant on 30 March, 2010

Gujarat High Court
The vs Assistant on 30 March, 2010
Author: Ravi R.Tripathi,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

SCA/3765/2010	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 3765 of 2010
 

To


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 3768 of 2010
 

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

THE
GROUP GRAM PANCHAYAT,LIMKHEDA - Petitioner(s)
 

Versus
 

ASSISTANT
ENGINEER(WR) & 1 - Respondent(s)
 

=================================================
 
Appearance
: 
MR
YM THAKKAR for Petitioner(s) : 1, 
None for Respondent(s) : 1 -
2. 
=================================================
 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 30/03/2010 

 

COMMON
ORAL ORDER

The
Group Gram Panchayat, Limkheda is before this Court challenging
orders dated 27th April 2006 and 30th October
2009 as the same are arbitrary in its perception.

Heard
learned advocate Mr.Thakkar for the petitioner. Mr.Thakkar submitted
that the petitioner is claiming ownership over Survey No.54A and is
aggrieved by the fact that by virtue of the aforesaid two orders,
respondent no.1 herein is going to put up a compound wall (to
demarcate boundaries of the Railway property). The learned advocate
submitted that there is no adjudication on the point of ownership of
Survey No.54A, and therefore, only on the basis of the above two
orders, respondent no.1 should not be allowed to put up boundary
wall. It is clarified that the ownership cannot be determined on the
basis of the orders referred to hereinabove. It will be in fitness
of things if the petitioner moves appropriate court for adjudication
of the ownership of Survey No.54A.

At
the request of Mr.Thakore, learned advocate it is clarified that once
the petitioner approaches the appropriate court for adjudication of
the question of ownership of Survey No.54A, the court will decide the
same without being influenced by the aforesaid two orders, viz.
orders dated 27th April 2006 and 30th October
2009, passed in the proceedings wherein in one of the proceedings the
petitioner was never given an opportunity to present its case on the
point of ownership.

2. With
the observations these petitions are disposed of. Direct service is
permitted.

(RAVI
R. TRIPATHI, J.)

karim

   

Top