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

2000 Supreme(Guj) 348

RAVI R.TRIPATHI
LODHA MANSING HARPAL – Appellant
Versus
STATE – Respondent


Advocates Appeared: D.F.Amin, DIGANT P.JOSHI

R. R. TRIPATHI, J.

( 1 ) THE present petition is filed by the petitioner against an order dated 27. 4. 1987 passed by the Secretary (Appeal), Revenue Department, Government of Gujarat (Annexure d ). It is the contention of Mr. Amin, the learned advocate for the petitioner that the said order is passed on the basis that the petitioner had not mentioned the purpose for which "non Agricultural" (NA) permission was sought for. On that short ground, the NA permission granted by the subordinate authorities came to be cancelled by the impugned order dated 27. 4. 1987.

( 2 ) MR. AMIN could point out to this Court that in response to the show cause notice dated 9. 12. 1986, Annexure b to this petition, the petitioner had filed a reply in February 1987, Annexure c to this petition. In that reply, the petitioner had set out all the details. This particular point regarding the purpose for which NA permission was prayed for is also mentioned. Mr. D. F. Amin, the learned advocate for the petitioner has pointed out that even in the order passed by the Taluka Panchayat dated 16. 9. 1995, which is produced at Annexure a, it is clearly mentioned in para 14 that the NA permission is granted for the pu





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