MANHARBHAI BHAILALBHAI AMIN Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Letters Patent Appeal is filed against the judgment and order dated 05.04.2011 passed by the learned single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 2185 of 2011.

(2.) MR . Shital Patel learned counsel for the appellant, original petitioner, submitted that the learned single Judge has failed to appreciate the matter in its proper perspective. He submitted that mandatory provisions u/s. 6(2) & 7 of the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 (for short, "the Act") have not been followed by the authorities below and therefore, the impugned action is bad in law and erroneous. He drew our attention to the said two provisions, which are reproduced hereunder for ready reference;

(3.) WE have heard learned counsel for both the sides. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the provisions of Sections 6 & 7 of the Act, we are of the opinion that the authorities below have committed serious error in passing the impugned orders, which is confirmed by the learned single Judge. In view of the same, the impugned orders passed by the authorities below as also the judgment passed by the learned single Judge in the captioned petition are quashed and set aside. It is, however, clarified that rights of the parties will be governed by the final decree that shall be passed in the Special Civil Suit No. 414 of 2001 pending before the trial Court at Vadodara in view of the decision rendered in Patel Ratilal Maganbhai v. State of Gujarat reported in : 2003 (1) GLR 562. The appeal is accordingly allowed.