STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. CHUNILAL VITTHALDAS RAVAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeals are listed for hearing today. We have heard Mr Nikunt Raval, learned AGP for the appellants and Mr JM Barot for respondent Nos. 1/1 to 1/3 in First Appeal No. 5814 of 1999.

(2.) THESE three appeals are directed against the common judgment and awards dated 27. 2. 1998 passed by the learned Assistant Judge, Sabarkantha at Himmatnagar in Land Reference Case Nos. 775 of 1987, 803 of 1987 and 840 of 1987. The above-numbered three references were heard and decided as a part of the group of Land Reference Case Nos. 765 to 853 of 1987. The First Appeals arising from the remaining matters in that group were disposed of by this Court by judgment dated 27. 12. 2000 in First Appeal No. 5730 of 1999 and allied matters and by another judgment dated 12. 3. 2009 in First Appeal No. 5740 of 1999 and other allied matters. By the aforesaid judgments, the judgment and awards passed by the learned Assistant Judge, Sabarkantha at Himmatnagar in the above group of Land Reference Cases were quashed and set aside and the matters were remitted to the Reference Court at Himmatnagar for reconsideration in light of the observations made in the judgment dated 27. 12. 2000 in First Appeal No. 5730 of 1999 and allied matters. The judgment dated 12. 3. 2009 also remitted the matters to the Reference Court.

(3.) THE present three appeals were separated in view of the fact that some of the respondent claimants had expired and therefore, their heirs were required to be brought on record. The heirs were thereafter brought on record and the delay in filing these First Appeals has been condoned by separate orders dated 27. 8. 2009. In each of the said orders, we indicated that since the First Appeals in which the applications for condonation of delay were filed were directed against the same common judgment and awards passed by the Reference Court, no useful purpose would be served by keeping those applications pending when no appearance was made even by those respondent claimants who were served. It was also noticed that there was no conflict of interest between the respondents who were served and the heirs of the deceased respondents who were not served. Accordingly, the delay was condoned for the same.