Gujarat High Court
Mukeshbhai Bachubhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 21 February, 2025
Author: Nikhil S. Kariel
Bench: Nikhil S. Kariel
NEUTRAL CITATION
HC/SCA/15855/2023 ORDER DATED: 21/02/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15855 of 2023
==========================================================
MUKESHBHAI BACHUBHAI PATEL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR VIMAL A PUROHIT(5049) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
SHRENIK R JASANI(9486) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR NIKUNJ KANARA ASSTT. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL
Date : 21/02/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Vimal Purohit for the petitioner and learned AGP Mr. Nikunj Kanara for the respondent No.1 - State.
2. By way of this petition, the petitioner challenges an order dated 14.08.2023 passed by the Collector, Ahmedabad, whereby permission sought for by the petitioner for payment of premium for NA purpose has been rejected on the ground that the State Government is contemplating to prefer a Review Application in an order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India dated 24.07.2018.
3. It would appear that the land in question had been declared to be excess under the ULC Act and whereas vide judgment dated 13.08.2013, a learned Coordinate Bench of this Court in Special Civil Application No.539 of 1993, had inter alia come to a conclusion that the possession of the subject land was not lawfully taken over prior to coming into effect of ULC Page 1 of 4 Uploaded by Y.N. VYAS(HC00207) on Fri Feb 21 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 22 03:25:29 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION HC/SCA/15855/2023 ORDER DATED: 21/02/2025 undefined Repeal Act. It would appear that the said decision had been confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 03.10.2016 in Civil Application (For Condonation of Delay) No.13497 of 2015 in Letters Patent Appeal (Stamp) No.1466 of 2015. It would appear that the order passed by the Division Bench had been challenged by the State before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and whereas vide decision dated 24.07.2018, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had dismissed the SLP on ground of delay as well as merits. It would appear that thereafter, the petitioner had purchased the land in question on 16.02.2021 from the original land owners and had moved the Collector, Ahmedabad, for grant of permission to pay the premium for NA purpose as well as for grant of NA permission. Vide the impugned order, the Collector having rejected the stay application, the petitioner has approached this Court. It would also appear that vide an order dated 01.05.2024, a learned Coordinate Bench of this Court had inter alia observed that while the SLP was dismissed approximately six years ago and more than eight years having passed after the application for NA had been rejected, yet no Review Application had been filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and whereas this Court had also directed the respondents to file a positive affidavit stating that the Review Application concerned is filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
4. It would appear that no such affidavit has been filed by the State.
5. It would thus, appear to this Court that the State has not yet filed any application for review before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in so far as order dated 24.07.2018 is concerned. It would therefore, appear to this Court that the reasons for rejecting grant of NA permission as well as for payment of premium had been rejected by the Collector, Ahmedabad, on absolutely unreasonable and untenable ground. To this Court, it would appear that any judicial pronouncement, more particularly of constitutional Courts, unless Page 2 of 4 Uploaded by Y.N. VYAS(HC00207) on Fri Feb 21 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 22 03:25:29 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION HC/SCA/15855/2023 ORDER DATED: 21/02/2025 undefined the same is interfered with by a superior Court i.e. in case of High Court or reviewed or recalled by the same Court i.e. in case of Hon'ble Supreme Court, is required to be given effect to and scrupulously adhered to by the State authorities. The State could not be permitted not to give effect to the orders of this Court as well as of the Hon'ble Apex Court using there dominant position, more particularly without taking any appropriate remedial steps as regards the orders against which the State has any grievance. In the instant case, it would appear that though the predecessor in title of the petitioner had succeeded before learned Single Bench, the learned Division Bench as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court, yet the State has a different opinion as regards the same and therefore, inspite of almost six and half years having passed after the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, yet the State Authorities are not inclined to give appropriate effect to the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court by rejecting the application for permission to pay the premium and for NA permission preferred by the present petitioner as the owner of the land in question.
6. To this Court, it would appear that the impugned order should not be permitted to continue any further and whereas to this Court, it would appear that the following directions would meet with the ends of justice:
(a) The impugned order dated 14.08.2023 is quashed and set set aside.
(b) The petitioner is at liberty to file appropriate application for very selfsame purpose, which had been rejected by order referred to hereinabove and whereas if such an application is preferred within a period of 15 days from today, the same shall be considered by the Collector, Ahmedabad, strictly in accordance with law within the statutory time limit, without Page 3 of 4 Uploaded by Y.N. VYAS(HC00207) on Fri Feb 21 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 22 03:25:29 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION HC/SCA/15855/2023 ORDER DATED: 21/02/2025 undefined referring to the same reason for which the earlier application preferred by the petitioner, had been rejected vide order impugned, which has been set aside by this Court.
7. With the above observations and direction, the present petition stands disposed of as allowed.
It is clarified that this Court has not gone into merits of the matter and whereas the Collector, Ahmedabad, shall take an appropriate decision strictly in accordance with law and in accordance with the extant policy of the State Government.
(NIKHIL S. KARIEL,J) Y.N. VYAS Page 4 of 4 Uploaded by Y.N. VYAS(HC00207) on Fri Feb 21 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 22 03:25:29 IST 2025