Patel Nathabhai Ranchhodbhai vs State Of Gujarat
2021 Latest Caselaw 3697 Guj

C/LPA/1771/2011                                                      JUDGMENTDt: 03/03/2021
PATEL NATHABHAI RANCHHODBHAI & 1 other(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 7 other(s)

                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                       R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1771 of 2011
                                          In
                     R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14239 of 2010




HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI

and

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV

==================================================================

1      Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the
       judgment ?

2      To be referred to the Reporter or not ?

3      Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?

4      Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
       interpretation of the Constitution of India or any order made
       thereunder ?

==================================================================
1.    PATEL NATHABHAI RANCHHODBHAI
2.    LABHUBEN S KORAT D/O RANCHHODBHAI

                                             Versus

1.     STATE OF GUJARAT
2.     THE RAJKOT URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
3.     THE TOWN PLANNING OFFICER
4.     THE COLLECTOR
5.     SHRI ISHWARBHAI SAVJIBHAI PATEL
6.     SHRI HASMUKHBHAI SAVJIBHAI PATEL
7.     SHRI KISHORBHAI SAVJIBHAI PATEL
8.     THE DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
==================================================================
Appearance:
MR HARSHIT TOLIA
for BHAVIN S RAIYANI(3855) for the Appellant(s) No. 1

MR SATYAM Y CHHAYA(3242) for the Appellant(s) No. 2

MR KM ANTANI ASST GOVERNMENT PLEADER(1) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,4

MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Respondent(s) No. 2

MR SUDHIR NANAVATI SR. ADV.



                                            Page 1 of 17

                                                                     Downloaded on : Sat Sep 04 08:00:42 IST 2021
 C/LPA/1771/2011                                              JUDGMENTDt: 03/03/2021
PATEL NATHABHAI RANCHHODBHAI & 1 other(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 7 other(s)

For JIGAR P RAVAL(2008) for the Respondent(s) No. 5

MR PRANAV V SHAH(2516) for the Respondent(s) No. 8
RULE SERVED(64) for the Respondent(s) No. 3,6,7
==========================================================

     CORAM: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI
                                      and
            HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV

                                   Date : 03/03/2021

                                 ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER : HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI)

1. This Intra Court Appeal has been filed against the Order and Judgement of learned Single Judge dated 21.2.2011 dismissing the Special Civil Application No. 14239 of 2010 filed by the Appellant-Patel Nathabhai Ranchhodbhai, Bedipara, Ranchhodnagar Society, Rajkot and Labhuben S.Korat, D/o Ranchhodbhai vs. (1) State of Gujarat, (2) The Rajkot Urban Development Authority (3) The Town Planning Officer, Rajkot, (4) Collector and Private Respondent No.5 Ishwarbhai Savjibhai Patel (6) Hasmukbhai Savjibhai Patel (7) Kishorbhai Savjibhai Patel. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the Petitioner with the following observations:

"9. Heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length. At the outset, it is required to be noted that by the present petition, which has been filed in the year 2010, the petitioners have prayed to quash and set aside the development permission granted by respondent no. 2 dated 07/10/2005 sanctioning the lay out plan in favour of respondent no. 5. Thus, as such there is a delay of five years in preferring the present petition challenging the development permission dated

C/LPA/1771/2011 JUDGMENTDt: 03/03/2021 PATEL NATHABHAI RANCHHODBHAI & 1 other(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 7 other(s)

07/10/2005. It appears that after the development permission dated 07/10/2005 and sanctioning of the lay out plan, respondents nos.

5 to 7 have submitted the application for Non Agricultural Use Permission for industrial use as per the sanction lay out plan in which affidavits of the petitioners to grant Non Agricultural Use Permission in favour of respondent no. 5 with respect to the entire land in question have been submitted. Thereafter, after the Non Agricultural Use Permission has been granted by the appropriate authority the lands in question have been transferred in favour of third parties and it is stated that approximately more than 14 industrial units are located on the land in question. It also appears that when the application was submitted for development permission in the year 2005 with respect to the proposed Final Plots Form No. 4 was signed by the present petitioners. Even affidavits were duly signed by petitioner no. 1, which was duly affirmed on 31/05/2005 and the same was also attached to the said application and only thereafter and after the draft Town Planning Scheme was sanctioned by the State Government under which it was proposed to allot Final Plot No. 3/1 and 3/2 admeasuring 1,834 sq meters and 20,847 sq meters jointly in lieu of original land bearing Revenue Survey No. 28/1 to 28/4 the development permission has been granted on 07/10/2005 and the lay out plan has been

C/LPA/1771/2011 JUDGMENTDt: 03/03/2021 PATEL NATHABHAI RANCHHODBHAI & 1 other(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 7 other(s)

sanctioned, and, therefore, it appears that the petitioners have consented to the said development permission of the entire land and thereafter, after a period of five years the petitioners have raised the objections against the development permission dated 07/10/2005. It appears that for the first time the petitioners have raised the objections in the month of October, 2010 and, therefore, now it is not open for the petitioners to challenge the development permission dated 07/10/2005. "

2. The learned Counsel for the Appellant Mr.Harshit Tolia has urged before us that the Town Planning Authority had erred in granting the Development Permission on 7.10.2005 and that deserves to be cancelled because the Consolidation of the agricultural land belonging to the Petitioner-Patel Nathabhai Ranchhodbhai and land belonging to Respondent No.5 Ishwarbhai Savjibhai Patel total admeasuring to 36523 sq. mtrs bearing Revenue Survey No.28/1 to 28/4 situated in village Vavdi, Taluka & District Rajkot was without any consent of the Petitioner and the proposed Final Plot No.3/1 and 3/2 admeasuring 1834 sq.mtrs and 28,847 sq.mtrs jointly in favour of Respondent No.5 and the present petitioner-Appellant cannot be sustained and he submitted that the said permission was also under the signatures of the authority who purportedly did not even hold that office on the particular date. He also submitted that the Petitioner-Appellant never consented or filed any Affidavit though a reference has been made to such Affidavit of the Petitioner dated 31.5.2005 and, therefore, not only the said Development Permission dated 7.10.2005 deserves to be cancelled but the allotment of Final Plots No. 3/1 and 3/2 also cannot be sustained. He also drew our attention to certain subsequent developments in the form of a Report

C/LPA/1771/2011 JUDGMENTDt: 03/03/2021 PATEL NATHABHAI RANCHHODBHAI & 1 other(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 7 other(s)

dated 3.10.2013 given by the District Panchayat Branch, Race Course, Rajkot, in which he sought to rely upon certain findings of the said Committee which would support his case of the said Development Permission being wrongly granted. The operative part of the said findings in the Report dated 3.10.2013 are quoted below for ready reference:

"૧૪. આ પ્રકરણે િબિનખેતી પરવાનગી

આપવામાં રાજકોટ િજલ્લા પંચાયત દ્વારા નીચેની

િવગતે ગંભીર ક્ષતિતઓ થયેલ છે .

(એ) િબિનખેતીની પરવાનગી મેળવવાની

અરજીમાં સવાલવાળી જમીનને સંબિંધી જરૂરી િવગતો

જેવી કે રે વન્યૂ રે કડ ર ઉપર ચાલતા ૭/૧૨ની િવગત

તથા ડ ર ાફ્ટ ટી.પી. સ્કીમની િવગત (મૂળ ખંડ , અંિતમ

ખંડ , ક્ષતેત્રફળ િવગેરે) દર્શારવેલ જ નથી. માત્ર ક્ષતેત્રફળ

૨૨૬૬૭ ચો.મી. દર્શારવેલ છે . અરજીમાં આટલી

ગંભીર ક્ષતિત હોવા છતાં સદર્ર અરજી સ્વીકારવામાં

આવેલ છે .

(બિી) અરજી સાથે ડ ર ાફ્ટ ટી.પી. સ્કીમ સંબિંધી

પુનઃવહે ચણી પત્રક રજૂ થયેલ ન હોવાથી િજલ્લા

પંચાયત દ્વારા ગંભીર ક્ષતતી કરવામાં આવેલ છે .

(સી) અરજી સાથે રજૂ થયેલ માપણી શીટમાં સવે નં.

-૨૮ ના ચાર િહસ્સા દર્શારવેલ છે , પરંતુ તે સાથે

િહસ્સા પત્રક સવે નં. ૨૮ ના બિદર્લે સવે નં. ૨૯નું

C/LPA/1771/2011 JUDGMENTDt: 03/03/2021 PATEL NATHABHAI RANCHHODBHAI & 1 other(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 7 other(s)

િહસ્સા પત્રક રજૂ થયેલ. આવી ગંભીર બિાબિત ધ્યાને

લીધા િસવાય અરજી પરત્વે આગળની કાયરવાહી હાથ

ધરવામાં રાજકોટ િજલ્લા પંચાયતનાં પક્ષતે ગંભીર ક્ષતિત

રહે લી છે .

(ડ ી) િબિનખેતી પરવાનગીના પ્રકરણમાં પેઈજ

નં. -૬૧ ઉપર રજૂ થયેલ અફીડ ે િવટની નકલ અગાઉ

જણાવ્યા મુજબિ પ્રથમ નજરે જ શંકાસ્પદર્ હોઈ િજલ્લા

પંચાયત કક્ષતાએથી તે પરત્વે િવશેષ ચકાસણી

કરવાની જરૂર હોવા છતાં તે નહી કરી ગંભીર ક્ષતિત

કરે લ છે ."

The English Translation of the Extract of Reported dated 3.10.2013:

(14) Rajkot District Panchayat has committed serious errors mentioned as under while granting N.A. permission in this matter. (A) The application to obtain non-agricultural permission does not contain required details of the land in question namely the details of 7/12 from revenue record, details of draft T.P.

Scheme (original plot, final plot, area etc.). Only area of 22667 square meters is mentioned.

Despite such serious shortcomings the application was accepted.

(B) As re-distribution sheet pertaining to the draft T.P. Scheme is not produced along with

C/LPA/1771/2011 JUDGMENTDt: 03/03/2021 PATEL NATHABHAI RANCHHODBHAI & 1 other(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 7 other(s)

the application, the District Panchayat should have asked the applicant to produce the same at relevant time. However, the District Panchayat has committed serious error by not doing so.

(C) Four divisions of Survey No.28 are shown in the measurement sheet attached with the application, but Hissa Patrak of Survey No.29 is produced in place of Hissa Patrak of Survey No.28. Without considering such serious lapse, the District Panchayat has made serious error on its part by conducting further procedure pertaining to the application.

(D) As stated earlier, the copy of affidavit produced on Page No.61 in this matter of non-

agricultural permission is prima facie suspicious, and therefore, though it was required to be examined further at District Panchayat level, serious error has been made by not doing so.

3. He further drew our attention towards another Communication dated 14.8.2014 of Mamlatdar, Rajkot Taluka addressed to Jilla Vikas Adhikari, Rajkot which also according to learned counsel for Appellant would support the cause of the Appellant-Petitioner.

4. Regarding another objections raised by the learned counsel for the Respondent NO.5 to 7 Mr. Sudhir Nanavati, Senior Counsel that the

C/LPA/1771/2011 JUDGMENTDt: 03/03/2021 PATEL NATHABHAI RANCHHODBHAI & 1 other(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 7 other(s)

Petitioner-Appellant Patel Nathabhai Ranchhodbhai has also filed a Civil Suit No.200/2012 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Rajkot, after the disposal of the Writ Petition by the learned Single Judge on 21.2.2011, in which the prayers or reliefs which are now sought in the present Letters Patent Appeal are almost the same and that Civil Suit is even now pending trial in the said Court and it was informed at Bar that though the Written Statement to the said Suit is filed by the Defendants, the issues for the trial are yet to be framed.

5. Learned counsel for the Appellant-Petitioner, Mr.Harshit Tolia sought to empathetically submit before us that the Civil Suit No. 200/2012 has been filed for declaratory reliefs and injunction and prayers made in the Civil Suit and in the present Letters Patent Appeal or before the learned Single Judge in the Special Civil Application were different and therefore the Petitioner-Appellant cannot be blamed to have availed two remedies for the same relief, one before the Civil Court and one before this Court.

6. On the other hand, Mr. Sudhir Nanavati, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Private Respondents as supported by the learned counsel Mr. H.S.Munshaw for Rajkot Urban Development Authority and both of them supported the impugned Order of learned Single Judge and prayed for dismissal of this Letters Patent Appeal on the ground of estoppal, acquiescence of Petitioner and disputed question of facts involved in this matter.

7. We have heard the learned counsel at length and perused the material on record.

8. We are of the considered opinion that the present Letters Patent Appeal is without any merit and deserves to be dismissed and the Order

C/LPA/1771/2011 JUDGMENTDt: 03/03/2021 PATEL NATHABHAI RANCHHODBHAI & 1 other(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 7 other(s)

and Judgement of learned Single Judge is unassailable. The reasons are as follows.

9. In our considered opinion, it has been rightly held by learned Single Judge that as far as the consideration of any objection on behalf of the Petitioner-Appellant regarding finalization of the Scheme under the Town Planning Scheme Act is concerned that process is not yet complete and therefore, objections, if any, in that behalf can very well be raised by the Petitioner-Appellant before the concerned authority of the Town Planing and they may be considered in accordance with law and it would be premature for this Court to pronounce upon such objections in any manner.

10. As far as the grant of Development Permission dated 7.10.2005 is concerned, the learned Single Judge relying upon the Affidavits of the Petitioner-Appellant dated 31.5.2005 and the purported signature of the Appellant-Petitioner on the Application jointly filed with Respondent No.5 for the said purpose for grant of Non-Agricultural use permission has found that the said Development Permission cannot be cancelled or quashed by this Court. The learned Single Judge also took note of the fact that after the said Development Permission was accorded in favour of the Applicants on 7.10.2005 as many as 55 Sale Deeds have been executed by Respondent No.5 and such Sale Deeds were not challenged, nor these 55 plot holders and some of them holding the Registered Sale Deeds in their favour, were not even arrayed as Respondents.

11. In our opinion the view taken by learned Single Judge is unassailable and we also find that whatever subsequent developments in the form of the two documents referred to above as relied on by learned counsel for the Petitioner-Appellant Mr.Tolia, namely, Report dated 3.10.2013 of the District Panchayat, Rajkot and the Communication of

C/LPA/1771/2011 JUDGMENTDt: 03/03/2021 PATEL NATHABHAI RANCHHODBHAI & 1 other(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 7 other(s)

the Mamlatdar dated 14.8.2014 and some other documents of that nature, if any, cannot be considered at this stage by this Court, as obviously the Petitioner-Appellant can refer and rely upon these documents before the Competent Authorities, who are still seized of the matter while finalizing the Town Planning Scheme under the provisions of the Act.

12. We are also not much impressed with the submission that the Civil Suit filed by the Petitioner namely, Civil Suit No.200/2012 pending the Court of Learned Senior Civil Judge, Rajkot, is for the reliefs foreign or alien to the reliefs claimed in the writ jurisdiction before this Court the extension of which in the form of the present Letters Patent Appeal is before us.

13. The prayers made in the Civil Suit are quoted below for ready reference:

"(૧૨) સબિબિ, આ દર્ાવો લાવી દર્ાદર્

માંગ વાની કે ,

એ) આ કામના પ્રિતવાદર્ી નં.૧ થી ૩નાએ અમારા

િહસ્સાની વાવડ ી રે .સ. નં.૨૮ પૈકી ૧ ની જમીન

બિાબિતે કોઇપણ જાતના હક, અિધકાર વગર

પ્રિતવાદર્ી નં.૪ થી ૫૫ના જોગ રજીસ્ટડ ર વેચાણ

દર્સ્તાવેજ કરી આપેલ છે તે તેમજ તેવા દર્સ્તાવેજો

આધારે અન્ય કોઇ ઉત્તરોત્તર તબિદર્ીલી વ્યવહાર થયા

હોય તે ગેરકાયદર્ેસર, પ્રથમથી જ રદ-વોઇડ અને

રદબિાતલ છે , તેવું ઠરાવવા િવનંતી છે .

                            અને     આ         બિાબિતેની      જાણ      સબિ-




 C/LPA/1771/2011                                           JUDGMENTDt: 03/03/2021

PATEL NATHABHAI RANCHHODBHAI & 1 other(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 7 other(s)

રજીસ્ટર ારશ્રીને તથા રે વન્યુ ઓથોરીટીને કરવા િવનંતી

છે .

બિી) આ કામના પ્રિતવાદર્ી નં.૧ થી ૩નાએ

અમારા િહસ્સાની વાવડ ી રે .સ. નં.૨૮ પૈકી ૧ની

જમીન બિાબિતે કોઇપણ જાતના હક, અિધકાર વગર

િજલ્લા પંચાયતમાં તથા રૂડ ામાં, પી.જી.વી.સી.એલ.,

રા.મ્યુ. કોપો. ટાઉન પ્લાનીંગ, રે વન્યુ િવભાગમાં તથા

અન્ય કોઇ કચેરીમાં િવગેરે જગ્યાએ કરે લી કાયરવાહી

ગેરકાયદર્ેસર અને રદબિાતલ ઠરાવવા િવનંતી છે .

સી)વાવડ ીના રે .સ.નં.૨૮ અનુસંધાને ફાળવવામાં

આવેલ કોમન ફાઇનલ પ્લોટમાં અમારી માિલકીની

જમીન એટલે કે , વાવડ ીના રે .સ. નં.૨૮ પૈકી ૧ના

ક્ષતેત્રફળ મુજબિ વરાડ ે પડ તી જમીન ધારણ કરવા અને

મેળવવા અમો હકદર્ાર છીએ, તેવું ઠરાવી તે મુજબિની

જમીન ૮૦૯૪ આ.ચો.મી. પ્રિતવાદર્ીઓ અમો વાદર્ીને

સંયુક્ત અને િવભક્ત રીતે સોંપી આપે એવું ઠરાવવા

િવનંતી છે .

ડ ી) આ કામના પ્રિતવાદર્ી નં.૧ થી ૫૫ નાએ કોઇપણ

જાતના હક, અિધકાર વગર એક્ઝીક્યુટ કરે લ

દર્સ્તાવેજો આધારે કોઇ ઉત્તરોત્તર તબિદર્ીલી, ટર ાન્સફર

ન કરે કે તેમ કોઇપણ પ્રકારનું બિાંધકામ, જે-તે

પ્રિતવાદર્ીઓ જાતે કે તેના એજન્ટ, મુખત્યાર, નોકર,

C/LPA/1771/2011 JUDGMENTDt: 03/03/2021 PATEL NATHABHAI RANCHHODBHAI & 1 other(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 7 other(s)

કડ ીયા, દર્ાડ ીયા કે અન્ય કોઇ મારફત ન કરે તેવો

કાયમી હુકમ ફરમાવવા િવનંતી છે .

ઈ) આ દર્ાવાનું તમામ ખચર અપાવવા િવનંતી છે . અને

અરજી અનુસંધાને મળી શકે અને અપાવી શકાય તેવી

હરકોઇ દર્ાદર્ આપવા િવનંતી છે ."

The English Translation of the said prayers made in the said suit No.200/2012 are also given below:

"(12) The plaintiff prays that;

A)Declare that the registered sale deeds executed by the defendant nos.1 to 3 in favour of defendant nos.4 to 55 in reference to the land at Vavdi being Revenue Survey No.28 paiki 1 of Moje: Vavdi be treated as ab- initio-void and cancelled. Subsequent transfers made so also be accordingly declared as ab-initio- void and cancelled and the Sub-Registrar and the Revenue Authority be informed accordingly.

B)Hold and declare that the action of the defendant nos.1 to 3 in carrying out formalities with the District Panchayat, Ruda, PGVCL, Rajkot Municipal Corporation, Town Planning Department and the Revenue Department be declared as cancelled and void-ab-initio.

C)Hold and declare that the plaintiff is entitled to

C/LPA/1771/2011 JUDGMENTDt: 03/03/2021 PATEL NATHABHAI RANCHHODBHAI & 1 other(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 7 other(s)

8094 square meters of land of Vavdi Revenue Survey No.28/1 and the defendants be directed to hand over possession of such land.

D) Permanently injunct the defendant nos.1 to 55 to carry out any construction and/or transfer or alienate the land in question on the basis of the executed sale deeds.

E)Pass such other and further orders."

14. As against the prayers made in this Writ Petition Special Civil Application No.14239 of 2015 are quoted below:

"(a)Be pleased to allow this writ petition.

(b) Be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction for cancelling permission issued by respondent No.2 dated 07.10.2005 being No.RUDA/DEV/Vavdi/76/05/2682, issue in favour of respondent No.5.

(c) Be pleased to direct the respondent- Authorities more particularly respondents No.1 to 3 to allot separate final plot to the petitioner within the boundary of original plot i.e. land bearing Revenue S.No.28/1 admeasuring 8094 sq.mtr. at the time of preparing preliminary Town Planning Scheme.

C/LPA/1771/2011 JUDGMENTDt: 03/03/2021 PATEL NATHABHAI RANCHHODBHAI & 1 other(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 7 other(s)

(d) Pending hearing, admission and final disposal of this petition, your Lordship may be pleased to stay implementation, execution and operation of the permission dated 07.10.2005 being No.RUDA/DEV/Vavdi/76/05/2682 issued in favour of respondent No.5.

(e) Pending hearing, admission and final disposal of this petition, your Lordship may be please to direct respondents authorities, more particularly respondent no.3 to consider the objection and/or representation of the petitioner for allotment of separate final plot within the boundary of original holding of the petitioner i.e. land bearing Revenue S.No.28/1 admeasuring 8094 sq.mtr. while preparing preliminary Town Planning Scheme.

(f) Be pleased to grant any other and further relief/s in the interest of justice."

15. The prayers made in present Letters Patent Appeal No.1771 of 2011 is also quoted below:

"Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with order dated 21.02.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge in Captioned Special Civil Application No.14239 of 2010, the appellants beg to prefer present Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent Act on the following rounds and those which may be urged at the time of

C/LPA/1771/2011 JUDGMENTDt: 03/03/2021 PATEL NATHABHAI RANCHHODBHAI & 1 other(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 7 other(s)

hearing of present Appeal."

16. From the above, we have no manner of doubt that at the sum and substance or root of the prayers made in the Civil Suit, though intelligently drafted to avoid the conflict of words of prayers made in the Writ Petition and in the present Letters Patent Appeal but in sum and substance the prayers claimed in the Civil Suit are same or similar.

17. The Courts in writ jurisdiction, settled as it is, cannot go into the disputed questions of fact or should not tread such path of disputed question of fact in writ jurisdiction. From the facts in the present case as stated above also it appears that the parties namely, Petitioner-Appellant and Respondent No.5 are not only entangled in various Civil disputes and before the Town Planning Authority also but there is a criminal angle of the dispute between the two parties also.

18. The facts prima faice indicate that the Petitioner-Appellant had joined the Respondent No.5 initially, when this preliminary Town Planning Scheme was being framed and for all the four Survey Nos. 28/1 (belonging to Petitioner-Appellant) and 28/2, 28/3 and 28/4 (belonging to Respondent No.5), a joint Application for Development Permission was filed but it seems that the dispute arose when on the Final Allotment of Plot No.3/1 and 3/2, since the deducted portion of the land appears to be out of Survey No.28/1 belonging to Petitioner-Appellant, the Petitioner- Appellant felt aggrieved and sought to raise a dispute by assailing the Development Permission dated 7.12.2005 straight away before this Court by way of filing the aforesaid Special Civil Application NO.14239 of 2010. The resiling of the Petitioner from the earlier stand may have any reason or background but it remains a seriously disputed question of fact nonetheless and we cannot be called upon to adjudicate the correctness, reasonableness or even context of such earlier consent and later retracting

C/LPA/1771/2011 JUDGMENTDt: 03/03/2021 PATEL NATHABHAI RANCHHODBHAI & 1 other(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 7 other(s)

by the Petitioner-Appellant. There are other appropriate forums where such grievance can be raised and made by the Appellant-Petitioner and the very fact that the Petitioner-Appellant is pursuing the matter so vigorously before the Administrative Authorities also, we advisedly feel it proper not to express any opinion on that.

19. As far as the filing of Civil Suit by the Petitioner-Appellant is concerned, we may only say that directly or indirectly if the substance of the relief claimed by the Petitioner-Appellant is same or even similar as claimed in the writ jurisdiction, we cannot encourage such practice on behalf of any litigant to try to ride two horses as it were. This is nothing but abuse of process of law and this may certainly result not only in the multiplity of litigation but serious possibility of conflicting Orders passed by two Courts, may be one in the Constitutional Courts in writ jurisdiction, the other by the hierarchy of Civil of Appellate Courts in the Civil Suit. It is for the parties, of course, to raise such objections before the Court concerned about the maintainability of the proceedings before it but we are of the considered opinion that the flow of litigation in such cases of complex of factual matrix should flow from bottom to the top rather than vice-versa.

20. We find that though the said Civil Suit was filed way back in the year 2012 despite lapse of 9 years even the issues for trial have not been framed and thus even the trial has not commenced. The reasons for such a huge delay are baffling. The fair and expeditious trial of all Civil Suits and more so in Criminal trials is the backbone of justice delivery system and fair and expeditious trial is even a fundamental right under the Constitution of India. Therefore such a huge delay even for framing the issues in the present Suit is a matter to be looked after by the concerned Trial Judge or the learned Principal District Judge.

C/LPA/1771/2011 JUDGMENTDt: 03/03/2021 PATEL NATHABHAI RANCHHODBHAI & 1 other(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 7 other(s)

21. Having said the above, we do not find any ground to tinker or tweak the Order of learned Single Judge in any manner and, therefore, we find the present Letters Patent Appeal to be without any merit. The same is liable to be dismissed and the same is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.

(DR. VINEET KOTHARI,J)

(BIREN VAISHNAV, J) NAIR SMITA V.