MCA/2582/2005 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD MISC.CIVIL APPLICATION - FOR CONTEMPT No. 2582 of 2005 In FIRST APPEAL No. 491 of 1981 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI ===================================================== 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ===================================================== BAVABHAI KARSANBHAI PATEL - Applicant(s) Versus MONA KHANDAR - Opponent(s) ==================================================== Appearance : MR BR GUPTA for Applicant MR K.B.TRIVEDI, ADVOCATE GENERAL with MS.SANGITA VISHEN, AGP for Opponent ===================================================== MCA/2582/2005 2/4 JUDGMENT CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI Date : 23/06/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL) The present petition is preferred for breach and disobedience to the order dated 1.11.2001 in First Appeal No.491/81 whereby the appeal was partly allowed and it was declared that the plaintiff who is the petitioner-herein is the owner of 1 acre and 8 gunthas of vonkla blank land and vonkla land automatically vested in the Government. The basis of the petition is that after the order passed by this Court in the First Appeal, revenue entry came to be mutated by the Mamlatdar, against which in the revision proceedings before the District Collector, the entry based on the judgment of this Court has not only set aside, but a different findings were recorded which may result into nullifying the rights accrued in favour of the petitioner as per the decree and therefore, disobedience to the judgment of this Court. 2. We have heard Mr.Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Trivedi, learned AG appearing with Ms.Sangita Vishen, learned AGP for the State Authorities. MCA/2582/2005 3/4 JUDGMENT 3. After some arguments, learned AG declared before the Court that as per the District Collector, the petitioner suppressed certain factual aspects of having already disposed of the land which was part of the subject matter of the suit and therefore in view of the said position, the Collector has acted in bonafide exercise of power. However, he submitted that since the Collector, Rajkot was one of the parties to the proceedings and the Mamlatdar mutated the entry based on the judgment of this Court and in view of the aforesaid factual position of having already disposed of the land by the petitioner prior and pending the suit and the possession of the land was also parted with to some extent, the details whereof are mentioned in the order which is the basis of the present petition, the said order passed by the Collector, Rajkot shall stand withdrawn with a view to enable him to move an appropriate application in the proceedings of the First Appeal, by resorting to appropriate remedy. 4. In view of the above declaration, the order of the District Collector dated 9.11.2005-29.10.2005 which is the basis of the petition shall not survive. Accordingly the present contempt proceedings are not required to be continued further. Hence the proceedings are dropped and disposed of accordingly with liberty to the Collector to move appropriate application in the proceedings of First Appeal No.491/81, as available in law. It is clarified that MCA/2582/2005 4/4 JUDGMENT if such application is made, rights and contentions of both sides in the aforesaid proceedings shall remain open and shall not get prejudiced in view of the order passed in the present proceedings. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs. (Jayant Patel, J.) (Akil Kureshi, J.) (vjn)