{"id":141152,"date":"2010-10-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-10-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jasmine-vs-state-on-4-october-2010"},"modified":"2017-10-22T19:16:45","modified_gmt":"2017-10-22T13:46:45","slug":"jasmine-vs-state-on-4-october-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jasmine-vs-state-on-4-october-2010","title":{"rendered":"Jasmine vs State on 4 October, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Jasmine vs State on 4 October, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: Ks Jhaveri,&Nbsp;<\/div>\n
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n\n  \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nSCA\/3321\/1998\t 9\/ 9\tJUDGMENT \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 3321 of 1998\n \n\n \n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI\n \n \n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n1\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tReporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n2\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nTo\n\t\t\tbe referred to the Reporter or not ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n3\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\ttheir Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n4\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tthis case involves a substantial question of law as to the\n\t\t\tinterpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order\n\t\t\tmade thereunder ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n5\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tit is to be circulated to the civil judge ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\nJASMINE\nFAROKH GANDHI THROUGH P.O.A. HOLDER - Petitioner(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nSTATE\nOF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance : \nMR\nPC KAVINA for Petitioner(s) : 1, \nMR MR MENGDEY AGP for\nRespondent(s) : 1 -\n2. \n========================================================= \n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n\t\n       Date : 04\/10\/2010 \n\n \n\n \nORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n
1.\t\tBy
\nway of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following
\nreliefs :-\n<\/p>\n
“[A[
\nThis Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue an appropriate writ order or
\ndirection quashing and setting aside the order at Annexure-“F”.\n<\/p>\n
[B]
\n That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to declare that, development
\npermission having been obtained under Section 29 of the Act, the
\npetitioner is not required to obtain permission under Section 65 of
\nthe Code.\n<\/p>\n
[C]
\nPending hearing and final disposal of the present petition, the
\noperation, execution and implementation of the order passed by
\nrespondent no. 2 dated 28.11.1997 be stayed.”\n<\/p>\n
2.\t\tThe
\nlearned counsel for the petitioner states that the issue involved in
\nthis petition is squarely covered by the decisions of this Court in
\nLetters Patent Appeal No. 205\/1999 in Special Civil Application No.
\n2365\/1998 dated 17.12.2003, Letters Patent Appeal No. 627\/1997 in
\nSpecial Civil Application No. 2264\/1988 dated 24.11.1999 and in the
\ncase of Karimbhai Kalubhai Belim & Ors. v. State of Gujarat &
\nAnr. Reported<\/a> in 1996(1) GLR 659. The order dated 17.12.2003 passed
\nby the Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No. 205\/1999 in
\nSpecial Civil Application No. 2365\/1998 reads as under :-\n<\/p>\n
      “#.  The appellants  have  challenged  the  order  of  the
\n      learned   Single  Judge  allowing  the  petition  of  the
\n      respondents and setting aside the orders of the Collector
\n      and the State Government made on 5th March, 1994 and 18th
\n      February, 1998,  respectively,  by  which  demolition  of
\n      thirteen  shops  constructed by the respondent-Society in
\n      Survey No.103\/3 within the development area of  Kapadwanj
\n      was ordered.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      #.   The  learned  counsel  appearing  for the appellants
\n      argued  that  the  construction  of  thirteen  shops  was
\n      contrary  to  law, because, no permission was granted for
\n      making such construction in the portion of land in  which
\n      the shops were constructed at the time when the Collector
\n      had  issued  order  on  29.5.1995  granting permission to
\n      construct twelve residential houses in 1965 sq.  mts.  of
\n      land while imposing a condition that other 9418 sq.  mts.
\n      should be kept open.    It  was  submitted  that  as  per
\n      condition no.    5  of  the  order  dated  29.5.1965,  no
\n      construction  should  be  done  on  the  land  except  by
\n      permission in  writing  of  the Collector.  Since no such
\n      permission was obtained, the order of the Collector  made
\n      on  5th  March,1994 and the revisional order of the State
\n      Government confirming that order requiring the  shops  to
\n      be demolished were justified.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      #.  In the order dated 5th March, 1994 at  Annexure:I  to
\n      the  petition,  the  only  ground on which the shops were
\n      ordered to be demolished was that  the  construction  was
\n      made  without  obtaining the permission of the Collector.
\n      That order was confirmed by the revisional  authority  on
\n      the same ground.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      #.  In respect of the agricultural land, the  Collector’s
\n      permission  is  required  when any occupant wishes to use
\n      his holding  for  any  purpose  other  than  the  purpose
\n      indicated  in  Section  65(1)  of the Bombay Land Revenue
\n      Code, 1879.  The provision regarding  permission  of  the
\n      Collector  requires  an  application  to  be  made by the
\n      occupant and the Collector may after due inquiry,  either
\n      grant or   refuse  the  permission.    This  is  why  the
\n      contention is raised that the Collector’s permission  was
\n      not  obtained  as per the said requirement which was also
\n      reflected in the  order  dated  29th  May,  1965  of  the
\n      Collector while permission was granted in respect of 1965
\n      sq.  mts.  of land.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      #.  In the present case, there is no  dispute  about  the
\n      fact that the permission to construct thirteen shops was,
\n      in  fact, granted by the respondent no.3-Area Development
\n      Authority on 20th November, 1989.  This fact is mentioned
\n      in  the  letter  dated  13.9.90  of   Kapadwanj   Borough
\n      Municipality  which  is  the  Area Development Authority,
\n      addressed to  the  respondent-Society  and  there  is  no
\n      dispute about  the same.  Under Section 26 of the Gujarat
\n      Town Planning  &  Urban  Development  Act,  1976,  it  is
\n      provided  that  on  or  after  the  date on which a draft
\n      development plan is published  in  the  official  gazette
\n      under  Section  13 in respect of any development area, no
\n      person shall carry on any development in any building  or
\n      over any land, within the limits of the said area without
\n      the  permission  in  writing of the appropriate authority
\n      and without obtaining certificate  from  the  appropriate
\n      authority  to  the  effect that the development charge as
\n      leviable under the Act has been paid or that no charge is
\n      leviable.  Under Section 27 of the said Act, any  person,
\n      not being the Central Government or the State Government,
\n      intending to carry out any development in any building or
\n      in  or  over  any land within the limits of a development
\n      area on or after the date  referred  to  in  section  26,
\n      shall  except  where  such  development is for any of the
\n      purposes specified in the proviso to that  section,  make
\n      an  application  in  writing to the appropriate authority
\n      for permission under Section 29 for such  development  in
\n      the  prescribed  form  and with the required particulars.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      #.\tBy  Section  117 of the said Act, it was provided
\n      that, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law
\n      for  the  time  being  in  force,  when  permission   for
\n      development  in  respect  of  any  land has been obtained
\n      under this Act, such development shall not be  deemed  to
\n      have  unlawfully undertaken or carried out by reason only
\n      of  the  fact  that  permission,  approval  or   sanction
\n      required  under  such  other law for such development has
\n      not been  obtained.    The  said  provision   which   was
\n      contained  in  Clause (a) of Section 117 has been deleted
\n      by Act No.  2 of  1999.    However,  the  permission  for
\n      construction of these shops which was granted by the Area
\n      Development  Authority on 20.11.89 during currency of the
\n      said provision was sufficient and the  construction  made
\n      pursuant  to  that  permission  cannot  be  ordered to be
\n      demolished on the ground that permission of the Collector
\n      was not obtained under Section  65  of  the  Bombay  Land
\n      Revenue Code.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      #.   The  impact  of the provisions of Section 117 of the
\n      said Act  was  considered  by  this  Court  in  Karimbhai
\n      Kalubhai Vs.    State of Gujarat and another, reported in
\n      1996 (1) G.L.H.  200 in which the learned  Single  Judge,
\n      in context of similar facts where permission was obtained
\n      under  Section  29 of the Act, held that by virtue of the
\n      provisions of  Section  117,  the  petitioners  were  not
\n      required  to  obtain any other permission under any other
\n      law.  The  learned  Single  Judge  followed  the  earlier
\n      unreported  decisions  which are referred to in para-3 of
\n      the judgment for holding that  no  permission  under  any
\n      other  law  including that under Section 65 of the Bombay
\n      Land Revenue  Code  would  be  necessary  if  development
\n      permission  was obtained under Section 29 of the Act with
\n      respect to the lands in question.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      #.  In view of the overriding effect of the provisions of
\n      Section  117(a)  of  the  Gujarat  Town  Planning & Urban
\n      Development Act, 1976  during  the  period  that  it  was
\n      operating and in view of the fact that the permission was
\n      already    obtained   by   the   respondent-Society   for
\n      constructing thirteen shops in the land in question  from
\n      the  Area  Development  Authority under Section 29 of the
\n      Act, there was  no  need  to  obtain  permission  of  the
\n      Collector  for construction of thirteen shops on the land
\n      in question under the provisions of  Section  65  of  the
\n      Bombay   Land   Revenue  Code  or  under  the  terms  and
\n      conditions of the order  dated  29.5.65.    We  therefore
\n      fully  concur  with  the  reasoning of the learned Single
\n      Judge given for setting aside the orders of the Collector
\n      and the State Government.    The  appeal  is,  therefore,
\n      dismissed.  There shall be no order as to costs.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
2.1.\t\tThe
\norder dated 24.111999 passed by the Division Bench in Letters Patent
\nAppeal No. 627\/1997 in Special Civil Application No. 2264\/1988 reads
\nas under:-\n<\/p>\n
       ”\tThis appeal, which is filed under  Clause  15  of
\n      the  Letters  Patent,  is directed against judgment dated
\n      June 28, 1996 rendered by the  learned  Single  Judge  in
\n      Special Civil  Application  No.   2264\/88, by which order
\n      passed by the Collector, Vadodara on  June  27,  1986  as
\n      confirmed  in revision by the State Government vide order
\n      dated February 12,  1988  requiring  the  respondents  to
\n      obtain N.A.    permission  under section 65 of the Bombay
\n      Land Revenue Code, is set aside.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      2.\tThe predecessor in title of the  respondents  was
\n      regranted  land  by  order  dated  January 12\/23, 1964 on
\n      certain terms and conditions.   The  predecessor-in-title
\n      of the  respondents  expired  in  November,  1983.    The
\n      respondents had obtained  necessary  building  permission
\n      under  section  29 of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban
\n      Development Act,  1976  (“Act”  for  short).     Pursuant
\n      thereto,  they  had  started  raising constructions onthe
\n      land.  The Collector, Vadodara issued notice dated  March
\n      11, 1985 calling upon the respondents to show cause as to
\n      why  the  constructions  raised on the land should not be
\n      ordered to be removed under section 66 of the Code, as no
\n      N.A.permission was obtained under section 65 of the Code.
\n      The respondents filed reply to the said notice  on  March
\n      30, 1985.  The Collector by his order dated June 27, 1986
\n      directed the respondents to remove the constructions made
\n      on  the  disputed  land  and  eviction of the respondents
\n      there-from.  Feeling aggrieved by  the  said  order,  the
\n      respondents   preferred   revision   before   the   State
\n      Government under section 211 of the Bombay  Land  Revenue
\n      Code.   The revision came to be rejected vide order dated
\n      February 12, 1988.  Therefore, the respondents moved  the
\n      High Court by way of filing Special Civil Application No.
\n      2264\/88  and  prayed  the  Court  to  set aside the above
\n      referred to two orders.  The learned  Single  Judge  took
\n      the  view  that  as the respondents had obtained building
\n      permission under section  29  of  the  Act,  it  was  not
\n      necessary for them to obtain N.A.Permission under section
\n      65 of  the  Bombay  Land  Revenue  Code.   Therefore, the
\n      learned Single Judge allowed  the  petition  by  judgment
\n      dated  June 28, 1996, which has given rise to the present
\n      appeal.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      3.\tWe may state that similar view was  expressed  by
\n      the learned Single Judge in several other matters and the
\n      judgments  rendered in some of the matters were subjected
\n      to appeal.  In Letters Patent Appeal No.  151\/96  arising
\n      out of  Special  Civil Application No.  7735\/95, Division
\n      Bench had passed following order on October 30, 1996 :-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      ”\tIN  THE HIGH COURT  OF  GUJARAT AT  AHMEDABAD
\n      \tORDER PASSED BY THE HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
      1.\tState of Gujarat
\n      \tthrough Collector, Baroda.  …  Appellants
\n      \t\tVersus\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      1.\tPatel Kantibhai Mohanbhai,
\n      \tthrough constituted power of
\n      \tattorney Chhotabhai Patel, 72,
\n      \tShrijidhan Co.operative Housing
\n      \tSociety,Manjalpur, Baroda.  ….  Respondents<\/p>\n
      BEING  LETTERS  PATENT APPEAL NO. 151 OF 1996: IN SPECIAL
\n      CIVIL APLICATION NO. 7735 OF 1995.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      \tMr.B.H.Chhatrapati for petitioner no.1
\n      \tGovernment Pleader for petitioner no.1
\n      \tMr. A.J.Patel for respondent no.1
\n      \tNotice served for respondent no.1
\n      \tMr. P.M.Bhatt for respondents no.2-3
\n      Date of Decision : 30.10.1996
\n      \tCORAM : G.D.KAMAT, C.J. AND C.K.THAKKAR,J.
\n      \t\t(30.10.1996)<\/p>\n
      ORAL ORDER :-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      \tWe have heard the learned  Counsel  on  admission
\n      after  disposal  of  the  application  for condonation of
\n      delay vide Civil Application No. 7797 of 1996.  We  admit
\n      this  appeal.  Admission  is,  however, restricted to the
\n      interpretation of legal provisions.
\n      \tShri  A.J.Patel,  learned  counsel  appearing  on
\n      behalf of the respondents say that the  scheme  has  been
\n      completed.   In  that  multistoreyed building has already
\n      come up.  We make it clear that even in the event  appeal
\n      succeeds,the order to be made shall not in any way affect
\n      the buildings which are already erected.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      \t\t\t\t\tSd\/-G.D.Kamat,J.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      \t\t\t\t\tSd\/-C.K.Thakkar,J”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      \tAgain, in  Civil  Application No.  7798\/96, which
\n      was filed in Letters Patent Appeal No.  151\/96, following
\n      order was passed :-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      \t“IN THE  HIGH COURT OF  GUJARAT  AT AHMEDABAD
\n      \t CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7798 OF 1996
\n      \t\t      IN
\n      \t LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 151 OF 1996<\/p>\n
      State of Gujarat\t\t….       Petitioner
\n           Versus
\n      Patel Kantibhai Mohanbhai,
\n      through his power of attorney
\n      Chhotabhai Kishorebhai Patel        …..  Opponent<\/p>\n
      To\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      1. The State of Gujarat
\n         through Collector, Baroda.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      2. Patel Kantibhai Mohanbhai,
\n         through P.O.A. Chhotabhai
\n         Kishorebhai
\n         72, Shrijidhan Co.operative
\n         Housing Society, Manjalpur, Baroda.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      \tWhereas the  abovenamed  petitioner  through  his
\n      advocate  presented  the  abovenamed  application in this
\n      Court praying:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      \tAnd whereas upon hearing Mr. B.H.Chhatrapapti for
\n      petitioner no.1, Court passed the following order :-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      \tCoram : G.D.Kamat,C.J. and C.K.Thakkar,J.
\n      \t\t\t(30.10.1996)<\/p>\n
      ORAL ORDER :-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      \tRule.  Heard  learned  counsel  for  the  interim
\n      relief.  Stay  of  the  impugned  judgment.    It  shall,
\n      however, not affect the cases which are decided  and  the
\n      work  relating  to construction is executed and completed
\n      or under construction.  The stay shall cover  only  those
\n      cases which   arise   in  future.    Rule  made  absolute
\n      accordingly with no order as to costs.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      \t\t\t\tSd\/- G.D.Kamat,C.J.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      \t\t\t\tSd\/- C.K.Thakkar, J.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      4.\tIt  is relevant to mention that in Letters Patent
\n      Appeal No.  151\/96, Court was called upon  to  interprete
\n      section 117  of  the Act.  Section 117 provided effect of
\n      other law and specified  that  nothwithstanding  anything
\n      contained in any other law for the time being in force –\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      (a) when permission for development in respect of any
\n              land  has  been  obtained  under  this  Act, such
\n              development shall not be deemed to be  unlawfully
\n              undertaken  or  carried out by reason only of the
\n              fact  that  permission,  approval   or   sanction
\n              required under such other law for development has
\n              not been obtained.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      (b)\txxxxxxx\t\txxxxxxx\t\txxxxxxxx”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      5.\tThe State Legislature has  passed  Act  No.XV  of
\n      1999 i.e.      “The   Gujarat  Town  Planning  and  Urban
\n      Development (Amendment) Act, 1999”.  By section 21 of the
\n      amending  Act,  section  117  (a)  of  the  Gujarat  Town
\n      Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 is deleted.  The
\n      amending  Act  was  brought  to  the  notice of the Court
\n      hearing Letters Patent Appeal No.151\/96  and,  therefore,
\n      the  Bench  hearing  appeal has passed following order on
\n      July 2, 1999 :-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      \t“IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT  AT AHMEDABAD
\n      \t LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 151 OF 1996
\n      \t\t\tin
\n      \t SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7735 OF 1995<\/p>\n
      State of Gujarat.\t\t…. Appellant
\n            vs.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      Patel Kantibhai Mohanbhai\t… Respondent<\/p>\n
      Mr.B.H.Chhatrapati for appellant
\n      Mr. A.J.Patel for respondent no.1
\n      Mr. P.M.Bhatt for respondents no.2 & 3.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      \tCORAM: K.G.BALAKRISHNAN,C.J. AND S.D.DAVE,J.
\n      \t\t\t(2.7.1999)<\/p>\n
      ORAL ORDER : (Per : K.G.Balakrishnan, C.J.)<\/p>\n
      \tThis is an appeal preferred by the State  against
\n      the  judgment  passed  in  Spl. C.A. No.7735 of 1995. The
\n      respondent herein had obtained development permission and
\n      contended that no further N.A. permission was required to
\n      be obtained from  the  State  authority.  That  plea  was
\n      accepted  on  the basis of interpretation of section 117A
\n      of Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976.
\n      While admitting the appeal, it was specifically held that
\n      the appeal was being admitted for the purpose  of  proper
\n      interpretation  of  section  117A  of  the  Act.  On 30th
\n      October, 1996, the Division Bench  has  passed  order  to
\n      the following effect :-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      \t“Shri A.J.Patel,  learned  counsel  appearing  on
\n      behalf  of  the  respondent says that the scheme has been
\n      completed.  In that multistoreyed  building  has  already
\n      come up.   We make it clear that even in the event appeal
\n      succeeds, the order to be  made  shall  not  in  any  way
\n      affect the buildings which are already erected.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      \tIt  may  also  be  noted that section 117A of the
\n      Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 was
\n      deleted by the Amending Act of 1999.  Under the aforesaid
\n      circumstances, the interpretation of the said  provisions
\n      is not  required.    Hence,  the  appeal  is  disposed of
\n      accordingly, Notice stands discharged.
\n      Date: 2.7.1999\t\t\tK.G.Balakrishnan,C.J.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      \t\t\t\tS.D.Dave, J.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      6.\tIn this appeal, the  appellant  had  filed  Civil
\n      Application No.    5598\/97 praying the appellate court to
\n      stay judgment and order dated June 28, 1996  rendered  by
\n      the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.
\n      2264\/8, pending hearing and final disposal of the appeal.
\n      It  was  also  prayed  that  the  respondents  should  be
\n      restraining from raising  any  construction  and\/or  from
\n      changing  the  status  of  the  land  in question bearing
\n      Survey No.  136 and Final Plot No.69  situated  in  Vasna
\n      Saied in  Taluka  Vadodara.  Initially, ad-interim relief
\n      was granted and the parties  were  directed  to  maintain
\n      status-quo as  on  September  1,  1997.  However, interim
\n      relief was vacated by an order dated September  22,  1997
\n      and Civil Application No.  5598\/97 was disposed of.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      7.\tThe  orders  passed  by Division Bench in Letters
\n      Patent Appeal  No.    151\/96  which  was  filed   against
\n      judgment passed in Special Civil Application No.  7735\/95
\n      as well as Civil Application No.  7798\/96 which was filed
\n      in  Letters Patent Appeal No.151\/96 make it manifest that
\n      the construction which was raised by the  respondents  on
\n      the disputed land would not to be affected in any manner,
\n      even if  the appeal is to be allowed.  There is no manner
\n      of doubt  that  the  appeal  involves  interpretation  of
\n      section  117(a)  of  the  Gujarat Town Planning and Urban
\n      Development Act, 1976.  As section 117(a) of the  Gujarat
\n      Town  Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 is deleted
\n      by section 21 of the  Gujarat  Town  Planning  and  Urban
\n      Development   (Amendment)   Act,  1999,  now  it  is  not
\n      necessary for the Court to interprete the said  provision
\n      and the issue involved in the appeal has become academic.
\n      It  is  ruled  by  the  Supreme Court in several reported
\n      decisions that  the  Court  should  not  decide  academic
\n      matters.   Under the circumstances, we are of the opinion
\n      that the appeal has become infructuous and deserves to be
\n      disposed of accordingly.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      \tFor  the  foregoing reasons, the appeal fails and
\n      is dismissed as having become infructuous. There shall be
\n      no orders as to costs.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
3.\t\tIn view of the aforesaid orders passed by this Court,  this petition stands disposed of on the same lines. The impugned order at Annexure-F to the petition is quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute to the above extent with no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
[K.S.\n<\/p>\n
JHAVERI, J.]<\/p>\n
 \/phalguni\/ <\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Jasmine vs State on 4 October, 2010 Author: Ks Jhaveri,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SCA\/3321\/1998 9\/ 9 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 3321 of 1998 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-141152","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nJasmine vs State on 4 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jasmine-vs-state-on-4-october-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Jasmine vs State on 4 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jasmine-vs-state-on-4-october-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-10-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-10-22T13:46:45+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jasmine-vs-state-on-4-october-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jasmine-vs-state-on-4-october-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Jasmine vs State on 4 October, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-22T13:46:45+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jasmine-vs-state-on-4-october-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2837,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Gujarat High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jasmine-vs-state-on-4-october-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jasmine-vs-state-on-4-october-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jasmine-vs-state-on-4-october-2010\",\"name\":\"Jasmine vs State on 4 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-22T13:46:45+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jasmine-vs-state-on-4-october-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jasmine-vs-state-on-4-october-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jasmine-vs-state-on-4-october-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Jasmine vs State on 4 October, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Jasmine vs State on 4 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jasmine-vs-state-on-4-october-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Jasmine vs State on 4 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jasmine-vs-state-on-4-october-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-10-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-10-22T13:46:45+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jasmine-vs-state-on-4-october-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jasmine-vs-state-on-4-october-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Jasmine vs State on 4 October, 2010","datePublished":"2010-10-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-22T13:46:45+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jasmine-vs-state-on-4-october-2010"},"wordCount":2837,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Gujarat High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jasmine-vs-state-on-4-october-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jasmine-vs-state-on-4-october-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jasmine-vs-state-on-4-october-2010","name":"Jasmine vs State on 4 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-10-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-22T13:46:45+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jasmine-vs-state-on-4-october-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jasmine-vs-state-on-4-october-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jasmine-vs-state-on-4-october-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Jasmine vs State on 4 October, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/141152","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=141152"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/141152\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=141152"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=141152"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=141152"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}