ATHHAVISI MODH CHATURVEDIGNATI PANCH Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Branch No.4, Surat, on the proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, declared an award, Annexure 'A' on 6-6-1990. Validity of this award was challenged by the petitioners, by preferring Special Civil Application No. 4364 of 1990 before this Court. Advocate for the petitioners, Miss V. P. Shah, made the following statement before this Court: (vide order at Annexure 'B') "Under instructions from the" petitioners, Miss V.P. Shah stated that the petitioners will submit a proposal to the Corporation to the effect that if they are given land bearing Nondh No. 2229 together with constructions for the school made thereon, they will hand over the entire Nondh No. 2161 and with all constructions for the school building of the same area, as is put up in Nondh No. 2229, at their costs, in exchange." This Court it seems, after hearing the parties, was prima facie of the view that the course suggested by the petitioners is eminently reasonable and the Court hoped that the Corporation will sympathetically consider the proposal of the petitioners. Ld. Advocate for the petitioners sought permission of the Court to withdraw the petition. Permission was granted and the petition has been disposed of as withdrawn. The court vacated the ad- interim relief granted earlier.

(2.) Reading the order of this Court, it is very clear that the petitioners instructed the ld. Advocate to withdraw the petition. The reason stated was that the petitioners wanted to make a proposal to the Corporation and the Court granted the permission simpliciter. Vide Annexure 'C', petitioners power of attorney holder forwarded representation on 27-2-1991 stating in paragraph 2 that the proposal is forwarded as suggested by the Hon'ble High Court and if the same is accepted by the Municipal Corporation it will be beneficial. The said proposal is rejected as stated by the ld. Adovacte, however no order is placed on the record. From the order, it is clear that Court did not suggest.

(3.) The present Special Civil Application was earlier heard and therafter petitioners filed an affidavit of power of attorney' holder explaining the delay wherein the deponent has stated that "Commissioner, Mr. Balvantsingh wrote a letter which was received in 1994 rejecting my application for compromise. The said letter is lost due to my eye weakness, cataract and old age. After receiving the said letter, I had gone to my native place. Thereafter, I immediately approached my advocate, Mr. M. C. Kapadia in September 1994 and got the matter prepared and as my advocate Mr. M.C. kapadia was suffering from colitis ulcer in the month of September. Hence matter was filed in the month of October, 1994, i.e. on 19-10-1994. As my advocate was shifted to Bombay for further medical treatment/investigation and operation, my matter could not come for admission." This Court, with a view to permit the petitioners to place on record the details, granted time. There is no detail as to on what date the letter was received; or when the deponent came to know about the order; or on what date deponent got operated for cataract; on what date he had gone to native place; and on what date he returned. Though time was granted, no details are given and we have rejected the request of Id. Advocate to grant further time.