SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2020 Supreme(SC) 360

A. M. KHANWILKAR, DINESH MAHESHWARI
Kapilaben Ambalal Patel – Appellant
Versus
State of Gujarat – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant(s) :Gaurav Agrawal, Advocate
For the Respondent(s):Deepanwita Priyanka, Advocate

Judgement Key Points

The judgment has been cited further in subsequent legal proceedings and discussions related to the same or similar issues of land acquisition, possession, and procedural delays. It has been referenced to support arguments concerning the importance of timely filing of legal challenges, the validity of possession and notification procedures, and the principles of laches and delay in filing writ petitions. The case has also been used to emphasize the significance of actual physical possession over mere paper possession, and the impact of procedural lapses on the enforceability of land acquisition actions. These references indicate that the judgment continues to be relevant in ongoing legal debates about the procedural correctness and timeliness of land acquisition and related rights.


JUDGMENT

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.

1. This appeal takes exception to the judgment and order dated 26.4.2011 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad [For short, “the High Court”] in Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) No. 233/2006, whereby, the writ petition being Special Civil Application No. 12602/2001 filed by the appellants came to be dismissed whilst setting aside the judgment and order dated 21.12.2005 passed by the learned single Judge of the High Court in the said writ petition. By the said writ petition, the appellants had sought following reliefs:

    “8. The petitioners pray that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction and/or order and be pleased:

    (A) to declare that the Panchnama dated 20.03.1986, (Annexure D) and the purported action of the respondents to take possession, purported constructive or actual of the lands mentioned in para (c) hereinabove is contrary to law and of no legal effect.

    (B) to permanently restrain the respondents from disturbing or taking


Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top