Viram Meraman Godhaniya vs State Of Gujarat
2021 Latest Caselaw 15029 Guj

     C/SA/128/2021                               ORDER DATED: 24/09/2021




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                     R/SECOND APPEAL NO. 128 of 2021

                                 With
              CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2021
                  In R/SECOND APPEAL NO. 128 of 2021
==========================================================
                       VIRAM MERAMAN GODHANIYA
                                 Versus
                           STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS SANDHYA D NATANI(3678) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.H.VORA

                             Date : 24/09/2021

                              ORAL ORDER

The present Second Appeal has been preferred by the appellant-original plaintiff against the concurrent findings of the learned Courts below arising out of the suit for declaration and permanent injunction.

2. The plaintiff claims to be in possession of the suit land ad-measuring 10 Acres bearing Survey No.2/6/1 situated at Village Ashiyapat, Tal. Ranavav, Dist: Porbandar. According to the plaintiff, the suit land is a government waste land and after putting his efforts and spending huge amount, he made the suit land to use for cultivation. As the respondents-authorities issued Notice under Section 61 and further the respondents failed to regularize the possession of the suit land despite the application of the plaintiff, the plaintiff filed the suit as afore- stated.

3. The learned trial Court framed necessary issue in Regular

C/SA/128/2021 ORDER DATED: 24/09/2021

Civil Suit No.137 of 2008 and after appreciating the pleadings and evidence both oral as well as documentary, dismissed the suit vide order dated 09/01/2014.

4. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the plaintiff has preferred an appeal before the Court of learned Principal District & Sessions Judge, Porbandar being Regular Civil Appeal No.25 of 2015 wherein the learned Principal Judge vide order dated 22/01/2021 dismissed the said appeal while confirming the judgment and decree rendered by the learned trial Court; which has given rise to the present appeal.

5. I have heard the learned Advocate Ms.Nathani appearing for the appellant and examined the findings of both the learned Courts below on the issue raised in the suit. Upon examination of judgment and order of both the learned Courts below, learned Advocate for the plaintiff-appellant is unable to point out any infirmity / perversity or impropriety in the concurrent findings of fact rendered by the learned Courts below. Not only that, learned Advocate for the plaintiff- appellant is unable to show to the Court any finding recorded by the learned Courts below is without any evidence or there is any illegality in the findings; except making request to regularize the possession of the suit land.

6. The Civil Court has no such power or jurisdiction to take care of the grievance as raised by the learned Advocate for the plaintiff-appellant. It is undisputed fact that the suit land is a government waste land and is of the ownership of government. The plaintiff occupies the suit land without any legal authority or permission from the Government and the learned Courts

C/SA/128/2021 ORDER DATED: 24/09/2021

below has rightly observed and found that the plaintiff has no cause to maintain the suit land as the plaintiff is not holding any legal title over the suit land. Under the circumstances, this Court does not find any error of law to interfere with the concurrent findings of the learned Courts below in exercise of powers under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure as the jurisdiction is confined to substantial question of law only.

7. Further, the plea of adverse possession as raised by the plaintiff-appellant against the Government is not tenable since on such ground the plaintiff cannot seek protection of his possession unless and until the plaintiff proves that he is in possession of more than 30 years and that too without any interference or obstructions and openly. Nothing sort of pleading or evidence is available on record and therefore, on none of the grounds the plaintiff has proved his case before the learned Courts below and thus this Court does not find any substance in the present Second Appeal as the same is devoid of merits both on facts and law and accordingly the present appeal stands dismissed at the admission stage.

In view of dismissal of the Second Appeal, all connected applications stand rejected.

(S.H.VORA, J) sompura