SCA/373920/2008 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 3739 of 2008 ========================================================= SPRINGFIELD OWNERS ASSOCIATION - Petitioner(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 11 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR SHITAL R PATEL for Petitioner(s) : 1, MR SATYEN CHHAYA GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent(s) : 1, MS ANUSHREE KAPADIA for Respondent(s) : 3 - 6. ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI Date : 11/09/2008 ORAL ORDER 1. Mr. Shital Patel, learned advocate for the petitioner seeks permission to delete respondents No.7 to 12 from the array of respondents. Permission, as prayed for is granted. Respondents No.7 to 12 shall stand deleted from the array of respondents. 2. Heard Mr. Shital Patel, learned advocate for the petitioner, Ms Anushree Kapadia, learned advocate for respondents No.3 to 6 and Mr. Satyen Chhaya, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 – State of Gujarat. 3. By this petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has SCA/373920/2008 2/3 JUDGMENT challenged the order dated 22nd January, 2007 passed by the learned Principal Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department on an application made by the petitioner praying to be joined as party in the proceedings of Revision Application No.MVV/HKP/AMD/51/2000 in connection with Revenue Entry No.3880 in respect of survey Nos.334 and 274/1 of Mouje Bodakdev, Tal: Dascroi. 4. The learned advocate for the petitioner has vehemently assailed the impugned order passed by the learned Principal Secretary. It is submitted that the petitioner is a necessary and proper party to the proceedings, hence, the learned Principal Secretary has erred in rejecting the application made by the petitioner. 5. On the other hand, Ms. Anushree Kapadia, learned advocate for the respondents No.3 to 6 has vehemently opposed the petition. It is submitted that the petitioners are neither necessary nor proper parties in the proceedings before the learned Principal Secretary. SCA/373920/2008 3/3 JUDGMENT 6. Having regard to the facts of the case considering the fact that it is the case of the respondents No.3 to 6 that the petitioners are neither necessary nor proper parties in the proceedings, the interest of justice would be met by observing that any order passed in the said proceedings would not be binding upon the present petitioners so as to adversely effect their rights, if any. 7. Subject to the aforesaid, the petition is rejected. Rule is discharged. (HARSHA DEVANI, J.) shekhar/-