IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 11876 of 2003 For Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA AND HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA ========================================= ================
========================================= ================ RUKSHANABEN AKBARBHAI GILANI Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & OTHERS ========================================= ================ Appearance :
MR VM DHOTRE for Petitioner.
MS MAITHALI MEHTA, ASST. GOVT. PLEADER for Respondents ========================================= ================ CORAM : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA Date : 21/08/2012
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA)
1. By this Public Interest Litigation, the petitioner has prayed for issue of writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction thereby quashing and setting aside the decision dated 19th January 2002 rendered in Appeal Case No. 11 of 2000 passed by the Deputy Collector, Viramgam Prant, Ahmedabad and to declare and hold that no action can be initiated under the provisions of section 10(1) of the Gujarat Patel Watans Abolition Act, 1961 [the Act, hereafter] as regards Survey Nos. 1532 and 162 since the said land was never re-granted by order dated 30th September 1968 of Prant Officer.
2. It appears that during the pendency of the present writ- application, the respondent No.3 has passed an order dated 31st August 2009 by which the land of Tika No.10, City Survey No.16 and Revenue Survey No. 1532 and 162 of Viramgam City has been held to be of the ownership of the State Government. It has also been further held that the land in question is not in possession of the original grantee. It has further been held that in the land in question, there are many residential as well as commercial encroachers and they being in possession since long, it will cause hardships to such encroachers upon the land if they are asked to vacate. According to the said order, the land in question being of the ownership of the State and the grantee being not in possession, the question of re-grant of the land to such grantee would not arise. It is further stated that the present encroachers upon the land in question would be verified and if they are ready to pay the market price, in that case, the City Survey Superintendent should submit a proposal as contemplated under section 10(1) of the Act.
3. The petitioner submits that if the aforesaid order is implemented, he has no further grievances.
4. Such being the position, we dispose of this writ-petition by directing the State-respondent to act in terms of the order dated 31st August 2009 passed by the respondent No.3, a copy of which has been annexed with the affidavit-in-reply of the State.
5. This writ-application is disposed of with the aforesaid direction.
Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.
[BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA, C.J.] mathew [J.B.PARDIWALA. J.]