SHAILESHBHAI PARBATBHAI PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr.Mihir Joshi, learned Senior Counsel appearing with Mr.Majmudar for the petitioner, learned AGP Mr.Nikunj Kanara for the respondent-State and Mr.Paresh Darji, learned advocate for respondent no.5.

(2.) Mr.Joshi, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that originally land in question was family property and thereafter, it was partitioned by metes and bounds and road is passing through the land of Revenue Survey Nos.191/1 and 193. He has submitted that on eastern side of the road there is revenue Survey No.191/2 and 192, whereas 193/1 is on the western side of the road, which came to the share of one Mr.Bharatsinh, whereas land on the eastern side came to the share of Antaraba. According to him, the petitioners have purchased the land from Antaraba and after promulgation of entry and after approval of lay out plan, they have started construction work. Mr.Joshi, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner submitted that thereafter Bharatsinh has filed Special Civil Suit No.24 of 2007 (New No.4 of 2017) before the trial Court and initially prayed for declaration and injunction and, there was no prayer for possession of the land.

(3.) While referring to the documentary evidence on record, Mr.Joshi, has submitted that initially NA permission was granted, against which Shri Bharatsinh has filed a petition before this High Court, which came to be withdrawn. Thereafter, Shri Bharatsinh has filed another writ petition raising the dispute about the boundaries of revenue survey numbers and some portion of his land is also on the eastern side of the road. Learned Counsel Mr.Joshi has also submitted that thereafter new promulgation was carried out and Survey No.233 was given to the land in question and initially it was not concluded. According to him, thereafter in August 2017, promulgation was amended and on the basis of the application of Bharatsinh, Superintendent has passed an order, which was recalled.