MANISH Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned advocate Mr. Zubin Bharda submits that he is appearing for and on behalf of the respondent no.2 and he filed his vakalatnama before the Registry yesterday, but his name is not mentioned in the cause list. Registry shall mention the name of learned advocate Mr. Zubin Bharda appearing for the respondent no.2 in the cause list.

(2.) Heard learned advocate for the applicants submits that land in question was purchased from the original land owners and application for getting permission under Section 65 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code for bonafide industrial use was made and the same was granted vide order dated 14.06.2018. It is further submitted that permission under Section 65 of the BLRC was granted only after making detailed inquiry by the revenue officer in respect of the title and situation of the land in question. That, no objection, till date, was raised by the first informant or his family members against the grant of permission. That, FIR was registered at the instance of some rivals in the town with a view to harass present applicants. Learned advocate for the applicants has referred certain documents of removing entries in the revenue record by the predecessor of the first informant as well as permission granted by the competent authority dated 14.06.2018 under Section 65 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code as well as order of the Town Planning and Assessment Department, Valsad dated 26.09.2018. Lastly, learned advocate for the applicants requested to protect the present applicants under the circumstances.

(3.) Learned advocate appearing for the respondent no.2 has strongly objected for granting interim relief as prayed for by the present applicants.