GENAJI KHUMAJI MALI PARMAR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned advocate Mr.Kalpesh Gurnam for learned advocate Mr.Ankit Bachani appearing for the appellants proposing to raise substantial questions of law as follows:

(2.) HOWEVER, considering the submissions with regard to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court as provided in Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 and also the judgment referred to and relied upon by learned advocate reported in 1973 (0) GLHEL-HC 216005 in the case of Mirchumal Samandas And Others . Union of India. HOWEVER, the submissions which have been made cannot be considered as substantial question of law which has been appreciated and considered by both the courts below. The Civil Suit was preferred by the applicants as an heir of Khumaji Maali, which came to be dismissed by learned Civil Judge, Palanpur by judgment and order dated 24.11.1998. The Civil Appeal being Regular Civil Appeal No. 2/99 was also preferred which also came to be dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge Dessa confirming the order passed by the trial court. The trial court has specifically considered the issue regarding the jurisdiction of the civil court and also the factual position on appreciation of evidence, where it is clearly reflected and discussed in the judgment, that, inquiry was made and after hearing the Settlement Commissioner at Delhi had decided the same vide order dated 19.6.68. There is a reference to the other evidence including the testimony of witnesses at Exh.101 and 92 etc., and, therefore, considering the concurrent findings of facts given by two courts below on this issue, there is no question of law much less any substantial question of law, which can be said to have been arisen for consideration of this Court.