IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 8272 of 1996 SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 5559 of 1997 SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 324 of 1998 SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 325 of 1998 SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 326 of 1998 SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 6930 of 1998 SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 8712 of 1998 SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 5008 of 1999 For Approval and Signature: Hon'ble CHIEF JUSTICE MR DM DHARMADHIKARI and Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE B.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 Civil Judge? : NO -------------------------------------------------------------- JARU NARAN BHIMA AHIR SAMJI DEVA SAMAT JAKHA AHIR SAMAT MERA KHATARIYA KUMBHA KASHA HARIJAN RAMJI TEJA AHIR KANORIA CHEMICALS AND INDUSTRIES LTD. KUVARSINH KARANSINH ZALA AND OTHERS Versus STATE OF GUJARAT -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: 1. Special Civil Applications No.8272 of 1996, 5559 of 1997, 324 of 1998, 325 of 1998, 326 of 1998, 6930 of 1998 and 8712 of 1998 MR KS JHAVERI for Petitioners MR SN SHELAT, AAG with MS HARSHA DEVANI, AGP for Respondent State 2. Special Civil Application No. 5008 of 1999 MR BD KARIA for Petitioner MR SN SHELAT, AAG with MS HARSHA DEVANI for Respondent State -------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : CHIEF JUSTICE MR DM DHARMADHIKARI and MR.JUSTICE B.C.PATEL Date of decision: 26/04/2000 COMMON ORAL JUDGEMENT Per: (Mr. B.C. PATEL, J.) These petitions are filed as the State Government refused to renew lease in favour of the petitioners on the ground that the Notification has been issued by the State Government in connection with Wildlife Sanctuary. In the order, it is indicated that the land in question forms part of the sanctuary. 2. Mr. S.N. Shelat, learned Additional Advocate General stated that the matter is under consideration and the survey settlement is being undertaken and the rights will be decided after the report is submitted to the Government and thereafter it would be for the State Government to take appropriate decision in accordance with law. Therefore, at this stage these petitions are not required to be entertained. Hence, these petitions are disposed of. Rule discharged. ( D.M. DHARMADHIKARI, CJ ) ( B.C. PATEL, J. ) hki