SCA/6061/1999 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 6061 of 1999 For Approval and Signature: 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 ? ========================================================= ISHWARBHAI PRABHUBHAI - Petitioner(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 12 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR MEHUL S SHAH for Petitioner(s) : 1,MR SURESH M SHAH for Petitioner(s) : 1, RULE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 1 - 2,4 - 11, 13, Ms. Trusha Patel, AGP for State. MR RN SHAH for Respondent(s) : 3, - for Respondent(s) : 12,12.2.1 ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER Date : 10/01/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT Heard Mr. Mehul Shah, advocate appearing for petitioner and Mr. RN Shah, advocate appearing for SCA/6061/1999 2/3 JUDGMENT respondent. In this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has challenged the order passed under Section 66 of Bombay Land Revenue Code read with Rule 100 of Bombay Land Revenue Rules as regards the construction work allegedly without NA permission over the land which is the subject mater of the suit. Accordingly, the orders dated 8.6.1998 passed by the Collector, Surat, and the order dated 8.2.1999 passed by the Secretary (Appeals) are challenged in present petition. 2. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing Mr. Mehul Shah, advocate submits that he has instructions from his clients that a mutually agreeable and amicable settlement between the contesting parties has been arrived at by compromise and the dispute has been settled and that therefore the petitioners seek to withdraw the petition. He, therefore, requested for permission to withdraw the petition. Mr. RN Shah, advocate appearing for respondent also made submissions to the same effect and agreed that the disputes between the parties have been settled and a compromise has been arrived at. In this view of the matter, Mr. Mehul Suresh Shah, SCA/6061/1999 3/3 JUDGMENT advocate requests permission to withdraw the petition. Request granted. Petition stands disposed of as withdrawn. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated. Rule discharged. No order as to costs. [ K.M. Thaker, J. ] rmr.