STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. BAVA KARSHAN PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Ms. Shachi Mathur, Ld. AGP for the applicant ? original appellant and Mr. YN Ravani, Ld. Advocate for the opponent ? original respondent.

(2.) THE instant application is filed by the applicant for following reliefs prayed for in para. 5 : ?[A] Your Lordships may be pleased to clarify that the common judgment and order dated 1/11/2001 passed by this Hon'ble Court [Coram : Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.P. Dholakia], the opponent is entitled to get the possession of the land admeasuring 0 acre and 4 gunthas only inasmuch as the opponent having disposed of the land alleged to be of his ownership, i.e. admeasuring 1 acre and 4 gunthas, out of 1 acre 8 gunthas; [B] That delay, if any, in filing the present application may kindly be condoned in the larger interest of justice.?

(3.) THE first and foremost contention which requires to be considered is that in connection with this dispute, the opponent ? plaintiff filed suit before the Civil Court in the year 1981. THE suit, in toto, came to be allowed and decreed in favour of the opponent ? plaintiff by judgment and decree dated 31/3/1980. As stated above, the said judgment and decree rendered by the Civil Court came to be challenged before this Court and this Court, examining all the material aspects of the matter and giving full opportunity of being heard to both the sides and in fact considering the submissions advanced on behalf of both the sides, partly allowed the appeal by judgment and order dated 1/11/2001 and observed that the decree passed by the Civil Court below, to some extent was required to be confirmed and to some extent was required to be modified. This Court, therefore, observed that 1 acre and 16 gunthas of Vokla bank land was held to be part and parcel of survey no. 345 and was of the ownership of the opponent ? plaintiff and decree to that effect was required to be confirmed in favour of the opponent ? plaintiff and against the applicant ? appellant. It was further observed that as far as 37 gunthas of land were concerned, admittedly they are Vokla land for rain water stream hence, the same are kept as it is and where it is and the same was vested in the Government. It was further observed that since the opponent ? plaintiff had sold 20 gunthas of land to Ravishankar from survey no. 345, out of which, admittedly 8 gunthas of land and Vokla land of survey no. 345 is admeasuring 37 gunthas and, therefore, 8 gunthas of Vokla land which has been sold to Ravishankar by the opponent ? plaintiff without any title and, therefore, the opponent ? plaintiff was required to give account to that effect to the State Government and accordingly, deducting the aforesaid 8 gunthas of land from 1 acre and 16 gunthas of land, this Court ultimately came to the conclusion that the opponent ? plaintiff was held to be owner of 1 acre and 8 gunthas of Vokla bank land. THE instant application, therefore, is preferred describing the same as clarification of the order passed in the appeal on 1/11/2001 and the same was, as stated above, filed in the year 2009, however, taking recourse to the earlier order passed in Misc. Civil Application for Contempt No. 2582/2005 dated 23/6/2008. When such is the situation, it appears that the instant application is filed almost after 8 years from the date of the pronouncement of judgment and order in the aforementioned appeal and after about one year from the date of order passed in the contempt petition.