Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Gujarat
  4. /
  5. 2012
  6. /
  7. January

Mahantshri vs The

High Court Of Gujarat|20 July, 2012

JUDGMENT / ORDER

1. Heard Mr. Kirtidev R. Dave, learned advocate for the petitioner.
2. By way of the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-
"a. Your Lordships be pleased to admit this petition.
b. Your Lordships be pleased issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction order by holding that the order of the respondent No.4 to take possession of the entire land allotted to the petitioner by orders Dt.02-06-2012 and 08-06-2012 and the notice of the respondent No.3 Dt.18-04-2012 and any other direction or action in this regard are bad in law, unconstitutional and it be quashed and set aside.
c. Your Lordships be pleased to order that during the pendancy of admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition the execution and implementation of the orders under challenge be stayed.
d. Your Lordships be pleased to grant any other relief/s as may be deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case."
3. Mr.
Dave, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that in fact the authorities and more particularly, Mamlatdar, Vadhvan issued a notice dated 18.4.2012 and has straightway asked the petitioner to vacate the land in question. The petitioner has prayed for further relief to the effect that the orders of allotment dated 2.6.2012 and 8.6.2012 are passed without considering the basic facts on record of the authority. It further transpires from the record of the petition that the authorities of the Panchayat has further issued a notice dated 8.6.2012.
4. As the proceedings are pending before the Mamlatdar and Panchayat, it would be open for the petitioner to file appropriate reply. The Mamlatdar, Vadhvan is hereby directed to consider the same and after giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, take appropriate decision and pass reasoned order on its own merits, without being influenced by the fact that the present petition is not entertained.
5. With these observations, the petition is disposed of at this stage. Direct service is permitted.
[R.M.CHHAYA, J.] mrpandya Top
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Mahantshri vs The

Court

High Court Of Gujarat

JudgmentDate
20 July, 2012