Gujarat High Court
Kanabhai Bhagvanbhai Lathiya vs Bipinbhai Nanubhai Rabari on 29 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9946/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9946 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✓
==========================================================
KANABHAI BHAGVANBHAI LATHIYA & ORS.
Versus
BIPINBHAI NANUBHAI RABARI & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. MAULIK M SONI(7249) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6,7
MR MANAN MAHETA(6037) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MS POONAM M MAHETA(11265) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
Date : 29/07/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. M. B. Rana for learned Advocate
Mr. Maulik M. Soni for the petitioners and learned Advocate
Mr. Manan Maheta for the respondent No.1.
2. The present writ application is filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs:
"(a) Your lordship may be pleased to admit/allow this petition.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9946/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/07/2025
undefined
(b) Your lordship may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order and
direction and be pleased to quash and set aside order dated
23.06.2025 passed below Exh. 89 in Regular Civil Suit No. 113 of 2015
in the interest of justice.;
(C) Your lordship may be pleased to interim order and be pleased to
stay further execution, implementation of order dated 23.06.2025
passed below Exh. 89 in Regular Civil Suit No. 113 of 2015 till final
disposal of the main petition.
(E) This Hon'ble Court will be pleased to pass such other and further
orders as the nature and circumstances of the case may require."
3. At the outset, learned Advocate Mr. Rana would submit that
in an earlier round of litigation, the very same impugned
application came to be rejected by the Trial Court, but due to
the remand of the matter by the District Court, again the
respondent has preferred the similar application for
appointment of DILR, which was allowed by the Trial Court
vide its impugned order dated 23rd June, 2025 passed below
Exh.89 in Regular Civil Suit No.113 of 2015.
4. Learned Advocate Mr. Rana would further submit that there
is, in fact, no grievance regarding the appointment of the
DLR for the measurement of the land; rather, the real dispute
pertains to the four boundaries of the suit land, i.e., the
Chaturdisha.
5. It is further submitted that, DILR being a public authority has
once prepared the report and submitted before the Court, it
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9946/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/07/2025
undefined
shall be treated as evidence. In view of the matter, this Court
may clarify that such report may be proved in accordance
with law.
6. Per contra, learned Advocate Mr. Maheta appearing for the
respondent would submit that as such there is no error much
less any gross error of law committed by the Trial Court
while adjudicating the impugned application and the issue is
covered by the decision of this Court in the case of Ramaben
Arjanbhai Dangar Versus State Of Gujarat And Ors
reported in (2013) 4 G.L.R. 3661.
7. It is further submitted that, during the pendency of the
present writ application, the order impugned is already
executed by the DILR and submitted its report which is
placed below Exh.95 in the aforesaid suit.
8. Nonetheless, learned Advocate Mr. Maheta would submit
that if this Court clarifies that the report of DILR is required
to be proved in accordance with law, the respondent has no
objection for such clarification. Further, learned advocate
seeks permission to submit a certified copy of such report.
Permission as sought, is granted. The report of DILR dated
16th July, 2025 submitted with the pursis filed below Ex.95
received by the Trial Court on 21st July, 2025 is taken on
record.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9946/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/07/2025
undefined
9. Having heard learned Advocates appearing for the respective
parties and after going through the impugned application and
the order passed thereon by the Trial Court, this court is of
the prima facie view that there is no apparent error on the
face of the record, nor any jurisdictional error committed by
the Trial Court while allowing the impugned application and
appointing DILR who is required to measure the suit land and
determine its four corners / sides i.e. Chaturdisha.
Nonetheless, it is hereby observed that such report once
received by the Trial Court, requires to be proved on record
in accordance with law.
10. The report of DILR which is received on the file of the Trial
Court in the aforesaid suit at Exh.95 requires to be proved on
record in accordance with law.
11. In view of the aforesaid, learned Advocate Mr. Rana
appearing for the petitioners does not invite more reasons in
the matter. Accordingly, the present writ application is
disposed of with the aforesaid observations. No order as to
costs.
(MAULIK J.SHELAT,J)
Nilesh
