(Per : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA) These appeals are preferred from the order dated 26.10.2004 of the learned Single Judge in Misc. Civil Applications of the appellant after withdrawal of the earlier Letters Patent Appeals of the appellant. The earlier Letters Patent Appeals being LPA Nos.1787 and 1790 of 2004 were disposed of by the Division Bench of this Court on 17.9.2004 on the appellant expressly seeking permission to withdraw the appeals to make an appropriate application for review before the learned Single Judge. Thereafter, the appellant preferred Misc. Civil Application Nos.1955 and 1956 of 2004 in the original Special Civil Applications which were disposed of by a detailed common judgment dated 18.7.2004.
2.Learned counsel Mr Anjaria appearing for the appellant reiterated the contention that the original order under challenge before the learned Single Judge, that is, the order dated 22.12.2003 of the Government of Gujarat, Urban Development & Urban Housing Department contains an error apparent on the face of the record insofar as the findings contained in para 6 of that order expressly kept out of consideration the option of allotment of Final Plot No.51 on the misconception that the High Court had directed consideration of variation barring that plot. It was seen from the memo of the petition that the contention regarding availability of the open Final Plot No.51 and as to it being kept out of consideration under a misconception about direction by the High Court was not agitated in writing in the memo of the petition, but it was contended to have been orally argued before the learned Single Judge.
3.As observed by the learned Single Judge in the order passed in the review applications of the appellant, learned advocate Mr Anjaria had fairly conceded before that Court that there was nothing in the Special Civil Application as far as the arguments with regard to Final Plot No.51 were concerned. It is specifically held by the learned Single Judge that the statement of learned counsel Mr Anjaria that certain arguments regarding availability of Final Plot No.51 were addressed before him and were not considered was factually incorrect. In fact no argument or submission was made by the learned counsel regarding availability of Plot No.51 before the learned Single Judge and, therefore, there was no question of considering the said argument, according to the impugned judgment. It is further held that the State Government had refused to accept the proposal for variation of the Scheme on merits and, therefore, non-consideration of Final Plot No.51 did not carry much significance.
4.As against the repeated assertion of the appellant that the petitioner was losing about 73.90% of the land of the Final Plot Nos.97 and 96, the correct finding appears to be that there was sufficient land for future development of the institution of the appellant and the total deduction from their land was only 1% to 2%. It is also observed in the order dated 23.12.2003 of the State Government that the TP Scheme was more or less totally implemented except for the present matter and there was very little scope for consideration of any variation.
5.In these facts, we do not find any merit in the appeals preferred from the order of the learned Single Judge by which the review applications of the appellant were rejected.
6.Accordingly both the appeals are dismissed and civil applications made therein do not survive and the same are also accordingly disposed of.
(M.S. SHAH, J.) (D.H. WAGHELA,J.) zgs/-