Hansaben Vithhalbhai Sakariya vs Vashrambhai Premjibhai Varsani
2022 Latest Caselaw 4315 Guj

     C/LPA/556/2022                                ORDER DATED: 21/04/2022




     IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

           R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.556 of 2022
                              In
         R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.18086 of 2017

=========================================
                      HANSABEN VITHHALBHAI SAKARIYA
                                  Versus
                      VASHRAMBHAI PREMJIBHAI VARSANI
=========================================
Appearance :
R N JADAV for the Appellant.
for the Respondent Nos.1,2,3,4,5,6
=========================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.J.DESAI
       and
       HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA P.
       MAYEE

                     Date : 21/04/2022
                       ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. J. DESAI)

1. By way of the present appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, the appellant - original petitioner has challenged the judgment and order dated 9.2.2022 passed by learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.18086 of 2017 by which learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition and upheld the order dated 13.6.2013 passed by Mamlatdar, Kotda Sangani, Rajkot in Mamlatdars' Court Act Case No.21 of 2012 which was further confirmed by order dated 27.2.2015 passed by Deputy Collector, Rajkot (City-II) in Revision / Mamlatdars' Court Act Case No.2 of 2013.

2. Mr. R. N. Jadav, learned advocate appearing for the appellant would submit that the authorities below have committed an error in accepting the Panchnama of the Mamlatdar which was not prepared in presence of the appellant. By taking us through

C/LPA/556/2022 ORDER DATED: 21/04/2022

the orders passed by the authorities below as well as of learned Single Judge, he would submit that this is the sole reason for removing the 'pala' (obstruction). He, therefore, would submit that the present appeal may be entertained.

3. We have heard learned advocate appearing for the appellant and perused the orders of authorities below as well as of learned Single Judge. It appears from the order dated 13.6.2013 passed by the Mamlatdar that he himself had visited the place and had found that illegal 'pala' (obstruction) was put by the present appellant and, therefore, order was passed way back on 13.6.2013 to remove the same. The said contention of the appellant that Mamlatdar had not visited the place and prepared Panchnama has never been challenged before the Deputy Collector or before learned Single Judge.

4. Considering the above aspect, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by learned Single Judge. Hence, the present appeal stands dismissed.

(A. J. DESAI, J)

(ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE, J.)

SAVARIYA