GUNVANT VALABHAI RAVAL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present application is filed for seeking following prayers:-

(2.) Brief facts as per the case of applicants in the present application are that the the applicants are residing at 1 (Old Plot No-23), Pawandham Society having revenue survey no- 900. The plot was purchased 27 years ago and all the applicants are residing there since last 17 years. The applicants had made boundary wall in the plot area and planted some trees. Sun City Society is situated adjacent to it and is having Revenue Survey No-901. The Sun City Society was developed after getting the N.A. Permission in the month of June, 2007 wherein one of the conditions was for the disposal of storm/rain water. It is further the case of the applicants in this application that the developers of Sun City Society viz. Vinodbhai Ishwarbhai Patel and Nareshbhai Atmaram Patel had breached the conditions imposed by the Collector, Mehsana and had not done anything for the speedy disposal of rain/ storm water. The developers of the Sun City Society and Kadi Municipal Corporation had acted in connivance and tried to demolish the wall of the applicants. Therefore, the applicant No.1 had filed civil suit being Reg. Civil Suit No.92 of 2009 for the purpose of declaration by the Competent Court about the non-availability of any easementary right for the disposal of rain/storm water. It is further the case of the applicants in this application that on 30/7/2014 the Respondent No.2 went to Pawandham Society to demolish the compound wall of the applicants so as to speedily dispose off the rain/storm water which has caused the water-logging in the adjacent society i.e. Sun City Society. The applicants obstructed the work of the Respondent No.2. The Prant Officer called the police authority and the FIR was registered against the applicants. The investigation was carried out and charge-sheet was submitted in the court. It is pertinent to note that till date trial has not even commenced against the applicants. Thereafter, the present application is preferred for quashing the FIR.

(3.) Heard learned advocate Mr. Dharmesh Nanavaty for the applicants, learned advocate Mr. Haribhai Patel for Mr. Deepak Sanchela, learned advocate for the respondent No.2 and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor Mr. Dhavan Jaiswal for the respondent No.1 - State.