IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD LETTERS PATENT APPEAL Nos 152, 153, 154 & 155 of 1995 in SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION Nos 654, 3542, 3543 & 3541 of 1984 For Approval and Signature: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.J.SHETHNA and HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.C.PATEL ============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : NO to see the judgements? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? : NO 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : NO of the judgement? 4. Whether this case involves a substantial question : NO of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder? 5. Whether it is to be circulated to the concerned : NO Magistrate/Magistrates,Judge/Judges,Tribunal/Tribunals? -------------------------------------------------------------- MOHANSINGH GURUCHARANSINGH Versus STATE OF GUJARAT -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: 1. LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 152 of 1995 MR PRASHANT G DESAI for Appellant No. MR PR ABICHANDANI AGP for Respondent No. 1-2 RULE SERVED for Respondent No. 2 -------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.J.SHETHNA and HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.C.PATEL Date of decision: 05/08/2004 ORAL JUDGEMENT (Per : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.J.SHETHNA) Learned AGP, Mr.P.R.Abichandani appearing in all these matters for the respondent-State of Gujarat places on record a letter dated 4.8.2004 addressed by the Competent Authority and Deputy Collector, Urban Land Ceiling, Ahmedabad to the Assistant Government Pleader, Gujarat High Court, Ahmedabad, wherein it is clearly stated that from the record the possession of the land bearing survey Nos.350/2/1, 350/2/2 and 350/2/3 were not taken over till 30.3.1999. The proceedings under Section 10(3) were over in all these cases, but excess vacant lands were not included in the list of lands of which possession was taken over. Therefore, as per the provisions of Repeal Act, 1999, all the writ petitions were required to be dismissed as having become abetted. In view of the above letter dated 4.8.2004, when all the writ petitions stood abetted, then all the appeal filed in them will have to be dismissed as having become abetted. Accordingly, all these Letters Patent Appeals are dismissed as having become abetted. No order as to costs. (B.J.Shethna, J.) (M.C.Patel, J.) *Pvv