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),
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."
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
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
