Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE
Maheshkumar Ramanlal Patel – Appellant
Versus
State of Gujarat – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE, J.
1. RULE. Rule returnable forthwith. Mr. Siddarth Rami, learned AGP waives service of rule for the respondents.
2. The present Special Civil Application is filed praying for the following reliefs:-
“9(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to admit this Special Civil Application ;
(B) YOUR LORDSHIPS may further be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari and be pleased to quash and set aside the order dated 09.09.2016 passed by the respondent no.1 in Revision Application No.MVV/BAKHAP/SUOMOTU/SURAT/2/2012;
(C) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to stay the further execution, operation and implementation of the order dated 09.09.2016 passed by the respondent no.1 in Revision Application No. MVV/BAKHAP/SUOMOTU/SURAT/2/2012;
3. It is the case of the petitioners that the names of the petitioners’ ancestor Shri Ramanlal Motiram came to be entered as Tenant in the second right of the land bearing Survey Nos.66/1, 67 and 68/A-1 admeasuring Hectors 2-88-34 at Nana Varachha, Taluka Choryasi, District Surat. The ancestor of the petitioners
Suo motu revisional powers must be exercised within a reasonable period; delays result in the action being considered arbitrary and may infringe on established rights.
Authority must exercise revisional powers within a reasonable time to ensure legal rights are not unjustly compromised.
Revisional powers in land disputes must be exercised within a reasonable time; otherwise, established agricultural rights cannot be annulled.
The delay of 11 years in exercising suo motu powers renders such actions arbitrary, violating established legal rights under registered sale deeds.
Revisionary powers must be exercised within a reasonable timeframe; actions taken after significant delays are deemed unjustifiable, preserving the validity of transactions during that period.
Section 27 relates to prohibition of transfer of any Urban land with a building thereon. Apart from legal position that Sec. 27 has been struck down as ultra vires, it is quite obvious that no such q....
Point of law: Since notice has been issued after 78 years, it is completely beyond the period of limitation and, therefore, the notice itself would be a nullity and without any jurisdiction. When the....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
