JUDAL VIRSANGBHAI BHAVANBHAI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant herein is respondent No.1, whereas respondent No.1 herein is the petitioner and respondent No.2 is also respondent No.2 in Special Civil Application No.9826 of 2014. Such Special Civil Application was preferred by present respondent No.1 - State of Gujarat challenging the judgment and order dated 31.3.2014 in Civil Misc.Application No.28 of 2013 by the Addl.District Judge of Banaskantha at Palanpur, whereby the application to condone the delay of 2364 days i.e. almost 6 - 1/2 years in filing Regular Civil Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 12.10.2006 in Regular Civil Suit No.58 of 2004 was dismissed. Thereby, the District Court has refused to condone the delay and therefore, there was no appeal against the judgment and decree dated 12.10.2006 in R.C.S.No.58 of 2004 filed by present applicant. Thereby, such decree is now confirmed. By such judgment and decree, Civil Court has declared the present applicant as legal owner by adverse possession so far as suit land of 2000 sq.mtr. of Survey No.540 of Palanpur Kasba is concerned. The Civil Court has also confirmed the interim relief granted in terms of paragraph 11(2) of the plaint at the initial stage. Thereby, practically, present applicant is declared as lawful owner of the suit land and defendants being present respondents are now restrained from interfering with the possession of the suit property, hold by present applicant. When such judgment and decree has been final, because of rejection of application for condonation of delay in challenging such judgment and decree because of inordinate delay and reasons assigned in the judgment and order dated 10.9.2015 in Special Civil Application No.9826 of 2014, practically, now opponents, including the State of Gujarat and one Co -operative Society to whom the State has allotted the said land at the relevant time, are practically restrained from disturbing the possession and ownership of the suit property from the present applicant i.e. original plaintiff.

(2.) At present, the applicant has preferred this Misc.Civil Application with main prayer, which reads as under: -

(3.) The scrutiny of record and submission Learned Senior Advocate Mr.R.S. Sanjanwala for the applicant makes it clear that this situation has arisen because of a notice issued by Dy.Collector of Palanpur to one Parmar Vishwadeepsinh Prakashkumar on 14.10.2015, copy of which is annexed as Annexure B to the application. The perusal of such letter makes it clear that when such person has applied for permission for construction on such suit land, the Dy.Collector, Palanpur has conveyed him that there is direction in the oral judgment dated 10.9.2015 in Special Civil Application No.9826 of 2014 to initiate proceedings for breach of condition and therefore, since office of the Collector, Banaskantha has to initiate proceedings for breach of condition, so also filing a revision against the entry No.24288 and 24369, permission for construction cannot be granted. Therefore, prima facie, applicant is right in submitting that the respondent No.1 - State authority has not only misinterpreted the judgment and order dated 10.9.2015 in Special Civil Application No.9826 of 2014, but gone beyond the scope of such judgment and therefore, the authority had jurisdiction either to grant or to refuse permission for construction, treating the observation under reference, which are reproduced herein above, as directions to the State authority to initiate proceeding for breach of condition, is certainly unwarranted.