SCA/534020/2001 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 5340 of 2001 For Approval and Signature: 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 ? ========================================================= MOTIBHAI ARJANBHAI BHARVAD & 5 - Petitioner(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 3 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR TS NANAVATI for Petitioner(s) : 1 - 6. MS MANISHA LAVKUMAR, AGP for Respondent(s) : 1 - 2. MR TH SOMPURA for Respondent(s) : 3, RULE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 4, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI Date : 11/12/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT Petitioners have filed revision application before the State Government challenging grant of land earlier allotted to Malarpura village for private SCA/534020/2001 2/3 JUDGMENT use. It is the case of the petitioners that part of the gaucher land was granted to respondent No.3 unauthorizedly and even the village Panchayat Members had connived with the grantee. 2. Before the Revenue Secretary, on behalf of the petitioners, an application came to be filed seeking permission to join Malarpura Gram Panchayat as additional respondent. This application came to be turned down by the impugned order dated 28.5.01. Hence this petition. 3. Having heard the learned advocate Shri Ankur Oza for the petitioners and learned AGP Ms.Manisha Shah for the State, I find that the Panchayat, if not a necessary party, is at least a proper party particularly when allegations were made against the Members of the Panchayat at the instance of the revision applicants and there was no harm in joining the Panchayat in the pending proceedings. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that revision application before the Revenue Secretary is still pending. 4. The impugned order is, therefore, set aside. The application of the petitioners seeking to join Panchayat as additional respondent in the revision application pending before the Secretary is allowed. Rule is made absolute accordingly. (Akil Kureshi, J.) SCA/534020/2001 3/3 JUDGMENT (vjn)