LPA/107719/1998 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 1077 of 1998 In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 7523 of 1997 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER ================================================= ======== 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 ? ================================================= RANCHHODBHAI AMBALAL PATEL THROUGH P.O.A. HOLDER - Appellant(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 2 - Respondent(s) ================================================= Appearance : MR PM BHATT for Appellant(s) : 1, Ms.MAITHILI MEHTA, ASST GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent(s) : 1 - 3. ================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER Date : 12/09/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI) LPA/107719/1998 2/3 JUDGMENT The present appeal is filed against the judgement and order dated 29th July 1998 rendered in Special Civil Application No.7523 of 1997 passed by the learned Single Judge. Para 2 of the judgement reads as under: “2. The petition suffers from delay of more than seven years. Having carefully considered the averments and submissions made in para 19.1 to 19.5 of the petition seeking to explain this delay, it is not possible to hold that the petitioner has made out any case for condonation of delay.” (emphasis supplied) 2. Besides, the learned Single Judge has recorded that: “ .. .. The ground trotted out by the petitioner that he was led to believe that his case ought to be reviewed depending upon the final result in cognate Appeal No.155 of 1988 cannot be accepted as sufficient or even bona fide. On the contrary, when the aforesaid appeals were disposed of by a common judgement which was admittedly received by the petitioner in 1990, the petitioner could have immediately challenged the same, if the petitioner was of the view that his case was similar to that of the appellant in Appeal No.155 of 1988.” 3. So far as the facts of the case are concerned, the learned Judge has dealt with the same in para 4 as under: “4. The notification under section 10(3) of the Act vesting the land admeasuring 197865 sq. mtrs. in the LPA/107719/1998 3/3 JUDGMENT State Government was published in the gazette on 24.7.1986 and the possession of the land was already taken over by the competent authority on 29.1.1987. The competent authority held that the application filed thereafter was not maintainable. The Tribunal confirmed that order in view of the fact that the land had already vested in the State Government and that the possession was already taken over before the petitioner submitted the declaration under section 21(1) of the Act.” 4. In view of the aforesaid facts, the Court finds no substance in the appeal. Hence the Letters patent Appeal is dismissed. (RAVI R. TRIPATHI, J.) (K.M. THAKER, J.) karim