BIPINCHANDRA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed to direct the respondents No.2 and 3 to register the complaint given by the petitioner and to take necessary further action in accordance with law.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that the land bearing Revenue Survey No.55/2, 87/2 and Block No.27 situated at Pavapur, Taluka : Lunawada, District : Mahisagar was distributed amongst the family members as per the family arrangement and pursuant thereto, the land bearing Block No.27 had come to the share of the petitioner along with other family members. It is the case of the petitioner that the said land is under the possession and occupation of the petitioner and other family members. It appears that on 15.02.2020 one of the cousin brothers of the petitioner, namely Navneetbhai Naranbhai Patel made an On-line application seeking N.A. Permission in respect of some portion of the said land. In the said On-line application, Navneet Naranbhai Patel had tendered an affidavit allegedly signed by other family members, including the petitioner herein. It is the say of the petitioner that the petitioner has not signed any such affidavit granting consent for obtaining N.A. Permission. It appears that vide order dated 19/26.06.2020 the competent authority granted N.A. Permission in respect of the said land. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed objection before the competent authority. The petitioner also gave a written complaint to the respondent police authority to register an FIR. However, till date, it appears that no FIR has been registered. Hence, this petition.

(3.) Heard learned advocates on both the sides and perused the documents on record. In the case of Divine Retreat Centre v/s. State of Kerala and Ors., (2008) 3 SCC 542, the Apex Court has in paras-41 and 42 held thus;