Gujarat High Court
Harijan Somabhai Dhana Through Lr ... vs Bijal A. Shah on 17 February, 2025
Author: A.S. Supehia
Bench: A.S. Supehia, Gita Gopi
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/1104/2023 ORDER DATED: 17/02/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONTEMPT) NO. 1104 of 2023
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 974 of 2018
=============================================
HARIJAN SOMABHAI DHANA THROUGH LR KHIMABHAI SOMABHAI
SUNDRA
Versus
BIJAL A. SHAH
=============================================
Appearance:
MR CJ VIN(978) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS NIRALI SARDA, AGP for the Opponent(s) No. 1
=============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
and
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
Date : 17/02/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA)
1. The present application has been filed under the
provisions of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, seeking initiation
of the contempt proceedings against the opponent for willful
and deliberate violation of the directions issued by the learned
Single Judge vide judgment dated 08.09.2016 passed in the
writ being Special Civil Application No.3254 of 2001, more
particularly in paragraph No.13 of the said judgment.
2. Learned advocate Mr. C. J. Vin, appearing for the
applicant has submitted that pursuant to the notice issued by
this Court, the respondent-authorities have fixed occupancy
price, hence the present contempt application was disposed of
as not pressed, keeping liberty in favour of the applicant to
open the case in case of difficulty. It is submitted that
thereafter the occupancy price is not mutated in the revenue
record and hence, the applicant was constrained to revive the
present application.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/1104/2023 ORDER DATED: 17/02/2025
undefined
3. We have heard the learned advocate for the applicant
and have also perused the judgment and order passed by the
learned Single Judge.
4. We do not find any willful and deliberate disobedience of
the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge.
The learned Single Judge in paragraph No.13 of the judgment
and order has observed thus : -
"13. In the result, present petitions deserve to be
allowed and accordingly stand allowed. The impugned order
dated 13.02.2001 passed by the SSRD is hereby set aside.
However, the Respondent No.3 Collector is directed to fix
the occupancy price for the lands in question to be paid
by the petitioners as expeditiously as possible and
preferably within a period of three months from the date
of receipt of this order. The petitioners shall approach
the Collector forthwith for the fixation of the occupancy
price, and the Collector shall fix and recover the same
with such rate of interest as he deems fit reasonable from
the petitioners accordingly."
5. Thus, the direction is only with regard to fixation of the
occupancy price, which is already done. The subsequent
administrative action of mutating it in the revenue record,
which the contemnor is alleging is not done, cannot be
examined by us in the contempt application since it is not
directed by the learned Single Judge. In case, the applicant is
aggrieved by such inaction, it will be open for him to file
appropriate proceedings before the appropriate forum.
6. With these observations, the present application stands
disposed of. Direct Service is permitted.
Sd/-
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J)
Sd/-
(GITA GOPI,J)
MAHESH/46
