Gujarat High Court
Gaurangbhai Harmanbhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 10 February, 2025
Author: Sunita Agarwal
Bench: Sunita Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/218/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/02/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 218 of 2025
==================================================
GAURANGBHAI HARMANBHAI PATEL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==================================================
Appearance:
MR DHRUV K DAVE(6928) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS HETAL PATEL ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Respondent No. 1
MISS AISHWARYA REDDY with MR YASH MODI for GUPTA LAW
ASSOCIATES(9818) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA
AGARWAL
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI
Date : 10/02/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
2. This is a second round of litigation initiated by the present petitioner who has filed a writ petition, namely Special Civil Application No. 20726 of 2022, wherein the judgment and order dated 14.10.2022 has been passed. A perusal of the said judgment and order at page '14' of the paper book indicates that the petitioner claiming to be owner of the land bearing Block/Survey Nos. 447 and 448 and particularly land at Survey No. 447 having an area H-R-A 0- 29-34 and land at Survey No. 448 having an area 0-28-33 in Taluka - Vadodara City, District : Vadodara (which is in serious dispute), Page 1 of 4 Uploaded by PHALGUNI PATEL(HC00175) on Fri Feb 14 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 15 02:24:32 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/218/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/02/2025 undefined claimed that he made representation for grant of compensation for which there was a rival claimant, namely one Shri Vinodbhai, who claimed his right over the land in question by virtue of a Will dated 09.04.2004. The order dated 14.10.2022 records that the said Vinodbhai claimed right as legatee under the Will claiming right over the land in question and has filed application registered as Probate No. 190 of 2006, wherein the petitioner had filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure for rejection of the plaint which came to be granted by order dated 26.04.2022. With these averments, the petitioner contended that he was having absolute right over the subject property and was entitled for compensation and on account of non-consideration of his representation, he was constrained to approach this Court.
3. Taking note of the said stand of the petitioner, this Court had disposed of the writ petition with the following observations :-
"2. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties, we are of the considered view that ends of justice would be met if the respondents are directed to consider the representation of the petitioner submitted on 30.04.2022, Annexure-B, if necessary by issuing notice to the said Mr. Vinodbhai also and pass orders in accordance with law expeditiously and at any rate within two months from the date of appearance of all the parties. This application stands disposed of accordingly. It is also made clear that we have not expressed any opinion on merits of the case. The learned AGP is permitted to file memo of appearance within an outer limit of four weeks from today."Page 2 of 4 Uploaded by PHALGUNI PATEL(HC00175) on Fri Feb 14 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 15 02:24:32 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/218/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/02/2025 undefined
4. A perusal thereof indicates that while issuing direction to decide the representation of the petitioner submitted on 30.04.2022, it was directed that notice be issued to the said Vinodbhai also before passing an order in accordance with law. In the present petition, the petitioner while referring to the previous writ petition and the order passed therein simply state that though the trial court has rejected the claim of Vinodbhai and the respondent authorities were required to immediately release the compensation in favour of the petitioner herein, however, till date no action has been taken by the respondent authorities.
4.1. It is further stated in paragraph '8' of the writ petition that being aggrieved and dissatisfied by rejection of the claim for additional compensation and excess interest without hearing the applicant and his family member, the applicants have preferred the present petition. The statement made in paragraphs '7' and '8' of the writ petition seem to be contradictory to each other.
5. Insofar as the contention of the petitioner in paragraph '6' about the dismissal of the Probate Case No. 190 of 2006 on 26.04.2022, pertinent is to note that there is no further contention that the said order has attained finality and has not been challenged further before any competent court of law/forum. The rival claimant Page 3 of 4 Uploaded by PHALGUNI PATEL(HC00175) on Fri Feb 14 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 15 02:24:32 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/218/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/02/2025 undefined Vinodbhai who had filed the Probate Case No. 190 of 2006 has not been impleaded in the present petition.
5.1. For the aforesaid, it is not possible for us to verify the facts stated in the writ petition. In absence of correct and complete facts before us, it is not possible for us to issue another writ when direction had already been issued by this Court in the judgment and order dated 14.10.2022, to the competent authority to consider the claim of the petitioner and take a decision.
6. We may further note that the present petition has been filed after a period of two years of the decision of this Court issuing directions as noted herein above. There is no statement in the writ petition that the order dated 14.10.2022 was served upon the competent authority. In absence of even this statement in the writ petition, the contention that till date no action has been taken by the respondent cannot be appreciated.
7. For the aforesaid, the writ petition having been filed with incorrect, incomplete and distorted facts is liable to be dismissed and is being dismissed as such.
(SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ ) (PRANAV TRIVEDI,J) phalguni Page 4 of 4 Uploaded by PHALGUNI PATEL(HC00175) on Fri Feb 14 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 15 02:24:32 IST 2025