Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/3842/2010 1/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 3842 of 2010
======================================
PANKAJBHAI
CHHAGANLAL BAVISHI
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT AND OTEHRS
======================================
Appearance
:
MR NIRAD D BUCH for NANAVATY
ADVOCATES for Petitioner Nos.1, 1.2.1, 1.2.2, 1.2.3, 1.2.4,
1.2.5,1.2.6
MR AMIT PATEL, AGP for Respondent No.1.
None for
Respondent Nos.2 - 3.
======================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA
Date
: 08/04/2010
ORAL
ORDER
1. The
petitioner has invoked Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution for
the prayers reading as under:
8.
The petitioners, therefore, prays as under:
(A) Your
Lordships be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the
nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction
quashing and setting aside the orders dated 30.11.1983 passed by
Respondent No.3, order dated 18.11.2008 and 13.10.2009 passed by
Respondent No.1 and further be pleased to hold that each of the
petitioners are entitled to hold the land to the tune of 1500 sq.
meters and further be pleased to permanently restrain the respondents
and/or their officers, servants, representatives, agents from taking
any coercive action in pursuance of the impugned orders.
(B) Pending
admission, hearing and disposal of this petition, Your Lordships be
pleased to stay implementation and/or operation and/or execution of
the impugned orders dated 30.11.1983 passed by Respondent No.3, order
dated 18.11.2008 and 13.10.2009 passed by the Respondent No.1 and
further be pleased to restrain the respondent authorities from taking
any coercive action in pursuance of the orders impugned in this
petition.
2. Admittedly,
the lands in question are not in possession of the petitioners, who
are heirs of the original owner of the land, who has passed away on a
date which was not disclosed despite a query in that regard.
According to the prescribed form submitted by the original land
holder, under Section 6 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation)
Act, 1976 (for short the Act ), he was holding land in excess of
the prescribed limit and after hearing and considering his objections
the impugned order dated 30.11.1983 was made by the Deputy Collector
under the Act. According to the averments made on oath in the
petition itself, the deceased holder had preferred an appeal under
Section 33 before the Urban Land Ceiling Tribunal and it was
dismissed. Further details of that appeal, the order made therein
and the date of the order clearly appear to have been deliberately
suppressed. It is further averred that present petitioners had
thereafter preferred Special Civil Application No.5899 of 2008 and
that petition was permitted to be withdrawn on 17.7.2008 on the
statement that the petitioners wanted to make representation to the
authorities. Although it is stated in paragraph 3.3 of the petition
that the order passed by learned tribunal as well as order dated
17.7.2008 in Special Civil Application No.5899 of 2008 are
collectively annexed, the order of the Tribunal is admittedly not
annexed, and learned counsel, Mr.Buch has apologized for such lapse.
He also admitted that, even outside the petition and record, such
order was not available with him. Thus, in short, repeated attempts
are made at assailing original order dated 30.11.1983, which was
admittedly confirmed in appeal and even without disclosing that order
second attempt is sought to be made for reopening the case for
arguments on merits.
3. As
pointed out by learned AGP, Mr.Patel, it was observed by Division
Bench of this Court in Competent Authority and Additional
Collector and Another v. Shantaben D/o. Devabhai and Others [2010 (1)
GLH 486], in similar
circumstances, that the petitioners were all along aware about ULC
proceedings, they had filed no declaration under Section 6 (1), they
had opposed taking of possession by the Government, their appeal was
rejected by the tribunal on 31.1.1987 and after keeping silence for
years together, without challenging order of the tribunal, writ
petition was filed. Such petition was held to be not maintainable at
all.
4. In
the above circumstances, the petition is not only required to be
dismissed in limine,
but the practice of suppressing material facts and even order of the
tribunal as also making repeated attempts at reviving a cause of
action by making worthless representation and obtaining a response
thereon has to be deprecated with an order to pay exemplary cost,
because it amounts to gross abuse of the process of this Court and a
wholly avoidable burden on the limited resources and public time of
heavily over-burdened Courts. Therefore, the petition is summarily
dismissed with cost quantified at Rs.25,000/-, which shall be paid by
the petitioners to respondent no.1 within a period of one month. In
case of failure to do so and making a report in that regard in the
registry of this Court, this order shall be placed before the Bench
taking up contempt of Court matters.
(D.H.Waghela,
J.)
*malek
Top