LPA/1238/1996 1/2 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 1238 of 1996 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT ================================================= 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 ? ================================================= TEKCHAND RAMCHAND NAVLANI - Appellant Versus MAMLARDAR & 2 - Respondents ================================================= Appearance : MR JM BAROT for Appellant : MR. S.P. HASURKAR, LD. AGP for Respondents : 1, 3, MR MB GANDHI for Respondent : 2, ================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT Date : 31/07/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD) 1. Heard learned counsels for the parties. The appellant had applied for getting an industrial plot at GIDC, Naroda and LPA/1238/1996 2/2 JUDGMENT accordingly the plot was allotted to the appellant. He paid part payment and for rest he prayed for deferred dates. Subsequently appellant prayed that he was not in a position to make remaining payment and the payment already made may be made easy, and the allotment may be cancelled, which request was not favoured. Thereafter the GIDC initiated proceedings for recovery of the amount then due as stated in the petition being Rs.27,735=00. Appellant has not filed any such documents or papers or evidence to show that he ever could show what he has said, except bald statements that he was not able to pay the amount and he has not accepted the plot. 2. Learned Single Judge has not found any favour with the arguments advanced because there was no document produced to support his contentions. We are in agreement with the learned Single Judge because in appeal also no effort has been made to establish the case. In view of the facts stated herein above, the appeal is meritless. Hence dismissed. No cost. [ BHAGWATI PRASAD, J ] [ S.R. BRAHMBHATT, J ] /vgn