STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. SANKALCHAND P VACHHETA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Court on the repeal of Urban Land ( Ceiling and Regulations ) Act, 1976 disposed of many matters by passing the following order:

(2.) The State Government has filed the present application for review of the above order by alleging that the possession of the excess vacant land was taken over by the State before notice in the main special civil application was issued. It is therefore, the State wants this Court to delete this part of the order "the authorities have not taken possession of the land in question from the petitioner, which is not in dispute." It is the contention of the State that the factual proposition to the effect that the possession of the excess vacant land was taken by the Government was not brought to the notice of the Court through inadvertence and mistake. Neither the officers of the concerned department were called nor the original record was perused. That the petitioner has suppressed the fact that the possession was taken over by the Government before the petitioner filed the petition in this Court. In support of the say, a copy of the panchanama taking possession of the excess vacant land is filed. Since the averments made in this application are common in all the matters, all these matters are heard togather and are disposed of by this common order.

(3.) Mr DN Patel learned AGP appearing for the applicant submitted that in these group of matters, the State Government has in fact, taken possession of the excess vacant land and this fact was within the knoweledge of the petitioners and the same was suppressed by the petitioners, and therefore, the case requires review of the order by deleting the observations that "the authorities have not taken the possession of the land in question from the petitioner which is not in dispute." In the submission of Mr. Patel, this is a clear case of mistake or the error apparent on the face of the record which clearly attract the provisions of Order 47, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. On the other hand, learned counsels appearing for the opponents intheir respective applications, while disputing the fact that the authorities have taken over the possession of the land inquestion from the petitioners submitted that none of the ingredients of Order 47, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure is satisfied and, therefore, the application itself is misconceived. Learned counsels appearing for the opponents also raised a contention regarding the limitation by submitting that the application for review being time barred and in absence of the prayer of condonation of delay, the same is also required to be rejected on that ground.