( 30 ) ON the other hand, subsequent letter dated 15. 7. 1998, Annexure : B, of the Commissioner Shri M. K. Das was without any substance and foundation. The petitioner attempted to obtain stay of operation of this letter by filing Civil Suit in the Civil Court, Bhavnagar vide Regular Civil Suit No. 775 of 1998 and the stay order was obtained. The said injunction or stay order is still operating and has not been vacated, vide Annexure : A/8 and A/9 of the Rejoinder Affidavit. It was argued by Shri Dhanuka that Appeal was preferred against Annexure : A of the Rejoinder Affidavit and in the said Appeal the respondent No. 4 remained unsuccessful in obtaining order for staying the operation of the injunction order granted and confirmed by the Civil Court.

( 31 ) THE next contention of Shri Nanavati for Respondent No. 4 had been that the Counter Affidavit of the Collector filed on 29. 11. 1999 demolishes the case of the petitioners that the earlier Survey Reports were reliable and as such no reliance should be placed on the earlier survey reports based on measurement from plain table. He also pointed out from this Affidavit that the Survey was done not by any skilled Surveyor, but by a Class - III surveyor and that too against the principles of survey and without notice to the respondent No. 4, hence no reliance can be placed on earlier survey reports. The contention of Shri Nanavati that the Affidavit of 29. 11. 1999 was filed by the Collector is apparently incorrect. This Affidavit was filed by Resident Deputy Collector, Bhavnagar. A Deputy Collector cannot be equated in status with Collector. So factually it is incorrect that this Affidavit was filed by the Collector. Secondly, this Affidavit is no Affidavit in the eyes of law because verification clause is wholly defective. It reads like this, "solemnly affirmed on this 29th day of November, 1999 at Ahmedabad. " This is no verification of Affidavit in the eyes of law. The aforesaid verification does not show what was actually solemnly affirmed before the person administering oath to the deponent. The requirement of law is verification should be parawise and it should be specifically stated which paras of the Affidavit are sworn and verified on personal knowledge and which paras are sworn and verified on information and belief and which paras are sworn and verified on legal advise. This is totally missing in this Affidavit. It is also not clearly stated that all the above paragraphs numbering 47 have been solemnly affirmed by the deponent. Consequently, this Affidavit cannot be said to be an Affidavit in the eyes of law. At the most it can be said to be a paper indicating the stand of the Respondent No. 3. Since this stand is not supported on oath nor by any other material or document it cannot be said that what is stated in this Paper is Correct and reliable. It is also not stated how Shri Arvind Katara, Resident Deputy Collector was authorised to file Additional Affidavit nor it is stated that he was ever posted at Bhavnagar earlier and that he had knowledge from the record about what was stated in the so called Affidavit. He has not clarified how the letters of the Collector and previous Commissioner were incorrect and how the survey reports were incorrect. Merely by stating that the survey report was prepared by Class III cadre surveyor, it cannot be said that the survey reports are defective. These survey reports were examined by the office of the D. I. L. R. and then the higher authorities were informed accordingly. Thus, it is equally incorrect to state in this paper that there was no testing by the higher Authority. He had also no courage to state that any other record except the survey map of 1926 is available. Consequently, the surveyor, no matter he belonged to Classiii cadre, committed no mistake in making survey from plain table and the binoculor. In the absence of latest map superimposition of latest map with the survey map prepared by the surveyor in this case cou

Click Here to Read the rest of this document