Ashabhai Atmaram Patel (Decd) Through Legal Heirs vs State Of Gujarat

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2019 Supreme(Guj) 964

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
J.B.PARDIWALA, VIRESHKUMAR B. MAYANI, JJ.
Ashabhai Atmaram Patel (Decd) Through Legal Heirs & 4 others– Appellant
Versus
State Of Gujarat & 7 other(s) – Respondent
F/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 551 of 2012, In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4413 of 1992 With CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1 of 2012 In F/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 551 of 2012 With CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR JOINING PARTY) NO. 1 of 2013 In F/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 551 of 2012 With CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR BRINGING HEIRS) NO. 1 of 2014 In F/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 551 of 2012 With CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR BRINGING HEIRS) NO. 1 of 2016 In F/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 551 of 2012 With CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 2 of 2012 In F/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 551 of 2012 With CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR JOINING PARTY) NO. 2 of 2013 In F/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 551 of 2012 With CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR BRINGING HEIRS) NO. 2 of 2014 In F/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 551 of 2012 With MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR RESTORATION) NO. 3 of 2016 In F/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 551 of 2012 With CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR BRINGING HEIRS) NO. 4 of 2016 In F/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 551 of 2012
Decided on : 09-12-2019

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : MR JITENDRA M PATEL(620) with MR JAYRAJ CHAUHAN
For the Respondent: MR AS VAKIL, M/s. Singhi & Company

Headnote:
Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 – Section 20 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order 23, Rule 3 – Being aggrieved by final judgment and order passed by Single Judge of this Court in Special Civil Application original Petitioner have filed Letters Patent Appeal (Stamp) alongwith Civil Application (Stamp) for interim relief – As there is a delay of 144 days, a separate Civil Application has been filed seeking condonation of delay of 144 days – Held, Court would briefly like to make some observations on SCA – Subject matter of challenge was order passed by Competent Authority under Ceiling Act – It may be noted that during pendency of SCA, Ceiling Act came to be repealed – Court finds that Applicants have miserably failed to show any cause, much less sufficient cause, to condone delay of 144 days in filing the LPA – Civil Application Dismissed (Paras 5.3, 6)

JUDGMENT :

VIRESHKUMAR B. MAYANI, J.

1. Being aggrieved by the final judgment and order dated 19.12.2011 passed by the Single Judge of this Court in Special Civil Application No.4413 of 1992, the original Petitioner Nos. 4 and 5 have filed Letters Patent Appeal (Stamp) No.551 of 2012 (“LPA”) alongwith Civil Application (Stamp) No.6220 of 2012 for interim relief. As there is a delay of 144 days, a separate Civil Application No.6651 of 2012 (“Delay Condonation Application”) has been filed seeking condonation of delay of 144 days. During the pendency of the LPA, the Civil Application for interim relief and the Delay Condonation Application, on account of the demise of some of the parties, various Civil Applications came to be filed for the purpose of bringing on record the legal representatives of the said deceased party and/or for condonation of delay in filing such Civil Applications for bringing on record the legal representatives. Additionally one Civil Application No.908 of 2013 has been filed by Jankalyan Apartment Cooperative Housing Society Limited (“Jankalyan Society") seeking to be impleaded as Respondent in Delay Condonation Application and another Civil Application No.909 of 2013 has been filed by Jankalyan Society seeking impleadment in the LPA.Civil Applications for Legal Representatives:

2. Before dealing with the Delay Condonation Application seeking condonation of delay of 144 days in filing the LPA, this Court would first deal with the various Civil Applications filed for the purpose of bringing the legal representatives of the deceased party on record and/or seeking condonation of delay in filing such Civil Applications. The said Civil Applications are as follows:

CA No. 10882 of 2012 being common Civil Application filed in CA No. 6651 of 2012, CA (Stamp) No.6620 of 2012 and LPA seeking condonation of delay for bringing legal representatives of deceased Respondents as prayed for vide paragraph 22 A and B thereof. As such, an AffidavitinReply has been filed in the said CA No.10882 of 2012. However, this Court is inclined to condone the delay and therefore the said CA No.10882 of 2012 is allowed.

CA No.2134 of 2014 has been filed in CA No.665l of 2012 and other Applications, seeking to bring on record the legal representatives of Respondent No.5 Chandrakant Atmaram Patel. The respective learned advocates have no objection if the said CA No.2134 of 2014 is allowed without prejudice to the rights and contentions. Accordingly, the said CA No.2134 of 2014 is allowed.

CA No.2154 of 2014 has been filed in CA No.10882 of 2012 and other Applications, seeking to bring on record the legal representatives of Respondent No.5 Chandrakant Atmaram Patel. REDMI Kline respective learned advocates have no objection if the said CA No. 2154 of 2014 is allowed without prejudice to the rights and contentions. Accordingly, the said CA No.2154 of 2014 is allowed.

CA No.1695 of 2016 has been tiled in CA No.12250 of 2015 seeking to bring on record the legal representatives of Applicant No.2/2Bharatbhai Ammtbhai Patel. The respective learned advocates have no objection if the said CA No.1695 of 2016 is allowed without prejudice to the rights and contentions. Accordingly, the said CA No.1695 of 2016 is allowed.

CA No.2289 of 2016 has been filed in CA No.12248 of 2015 and other Applications seeking to bring on record the legal representatives of Applicant No.2/2 Bharatbhai Amrutbhai Patel. The respective learned advocates have no objection if the said CA No.2289 of 2016 is allowed without prejudice to the rights and contentions. Accordingly, the said CA No.2289 of 2016 is allowed.

In view of the above, CA No. 10882 of 2012, CA No. 2134 of 2014, CA No. 2154 of 2014, CA No. 1695 of 2016 and CA No.2289 of 2016 are allowed.

CA 6651 of 2012 for condonation of delay in filing LPA:

3. This Court shall now consider Civil Application No.6651 of 2012/Delay Condonation Application by which the Applicants have prayed for condonation of delay of 144 days in

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2019 Supreme(Guj) 964

Cases Referred (1)