C/LPA/345/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 23/06/2021

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 345 of 2020

In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 19061 of 2018

With

CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2020

In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 345 of 2020

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM NATH

and

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV

==========================================================

1

Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed

to see the judgment ?

2

To be referred to the Reporter or not ?

3

Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy

of the judgment ?

4

Whether this case involves a substantial question

of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution

of India or any order made thereunder ?

==========================================================

PASCHIM GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITED THROUGH DEPUT

ENGINEER

Versus

GHANSHYAMSINH AMARSINH GOHIL

==========================================================

Appearance:

MS LILU K BHAYA(1705) for the Appellant(s) No. 1

MR.MEHUL S SHAH, SR COUNSEL WITH MR VISHAL C MEHTA(6152) for

the Respondent(s) No. 1

==========================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE

VIKRAM NATH

and

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV

Date : 23/06/2021

Page 1 of 16

C/LPA/345/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 23/06/2021

CAV JUDGMENT

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV)

1

The appellant Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Limited (P.G.V.C.L

for short) was the original respondent in the Special Civil Application No.

19061 of 2018 which was decided by the learned Single Judge by oral

judgment dated 12.12.2019. Ghanshyamsinh Amarsinh Gohil, the

original petitioner, had approached the learned Single Judge assailing a

communication dated 17.10.2018 issued by the appellant. By the

aforesaid communication, the appellant refused to entertain the request of

the respondent – petitioner for a new connection for supply of electricity

unless and until the outstanding dues to the tune of Rs.1,07,62,381.31

paisa of the previous owner of the land, namely, Chhatrasinh alias

Satubha Sarvaiya are paid. The learned Single Judge by the judgment

under challenge allowed the petition and held that the appellant electricity

company could not have rejected the application filed by the petitioner

for a new connection for the supply of electricity as there were no

outstanding dues with regard to the land in question.

2.

The facts in brief are as under:

2.1

Chhatrasinh alias Satubha Sarvaiya was the owner of land being

Survey No. 16 paiki 5 paiki 1. The total land holding of his ownership

was 1 hector 82 Are and 11 sq.meters.

This was a part of the land

Page 2 of 16

C/LPA/345/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 23/06/2021

of Survey No.16 admeasuring 22 acres and 38 gunthas. Initially, the land

was in the name of Harijan Mala Wala. On 12.09.1975, an Entry No. 292

was recorded showing that 4 acres and 20 gunthas of that parcel of land

was sold on 26.08.1975 to Makwana Dalpat Pitambar and Dhanji

Pitambar. Chhatrasinh alias Satubha Sarvaiya, the previous owner from

whom the original petitioner had purchased the land had bought it from

Dalpat Pitambar and Dhanji Pitambar. The area was admeasuring 1

hector 82 are and 11 sq.mtrs.

2.2

On 04.03.2017, the original petitioner, Ghanshyamsinh, purchased

land admeasuring 1 hector 25 are and 45 sq.mtrs from Satubha Sarvaiya

(original land holding of Satubha was 1 hector 82 are and 11 sq.mtrs).

On purchase of the land by the petitioner – respondent, he applied for

N.A permission, which was rejected on 31.08.2017 on two grounds, one

being that the land in question was a sub