NAGARBHAI BHAGVANDAS PRAJAPATI Vs. YOGESHCHANDRA BHAVSAR DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present Appeal from Order has been preferred by the appellant-original plaintiff challenging the order passed below application, Exh.5 in Special Civil Suit No.53 of 2010 dismissing the application, Exh.5 and refusing the injunction by the Learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nadiad vide order dated 25th April, 2011.

(2.) THE facts of the case briefly stated are that the plaintiff claims that he had entered into banakhat, which is produced at Page No.64 and he is in possession of the disputed land. THE respondents are bonafide purchasers for a value of the said land from the original owners by registered sale deed and they have been put in possession as per the recital. THE said land was purchased for the industrial purpose of Vraj Integrated Textile Park and the premium and other amount has been paid, which is part of the record discussed in the impugned order.

(3.) IN support of his submissions, he has referred to and relied upon the judgment of this Court reported in 2010(2) GLR 1158 in case of Ashok Popatlal Datani & Ors. V/s Geetaben W/o Prakashchandra Tribhovandas Datani & Ors. and 2010(2) GLR 1041 Harshadkumar Kantilal Bhalodwala & Anr. V/s Ishwarbhai Chandubhai Patel & Ors.. Mr.Joshi has also submitted that the so-called banakhat, which has been relied upon, is only in printed as it does not reflects proper details. He also pointedly referred to the aspect that one Bhanabhai, whose name is handwritten, has in fact expired earlier. Further, Clause 6, which refers to obtaining permission under Section 43 of the Agricultural Land & Tenancy Act and converting the land from new tenure land to old tenure land, is itself self-contradictory from the record. Learned counsel, Mr.Joshi referred to Extract 7/12 produced on record with regard to the same land, which refers to it as old tenure land. He, therefore, submitted that there is no question of making any such application and this itself raises doubt of the banakhat. Further, he submitted that there is no recital about the possession having been handed over. He, therefore, submitted that the present Appeal may not be entertained and the impugned order is just and proper.