IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 3594 of 1989 For Approval and Signature: Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA ============================================================ 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 -------------------------------------------------------------- DEVKRUSHNA B JAGRIA Versus STATE OF GUJARAT -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: 1. Special Civil Application No. 3594 of 1989 MR YS MANKAD for Petitioner MR AJ DESAI, AGP for Respondents No. 1-2,4 -------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA Date of decision: 25/10/2001 ORAL JUDGEMENT There is a consensus that the premises in question was already demolished and the plans and outlook of the local area has undergone material change after the devastating earthquake which struck City of Bhuj on 26th January, 2001. The learned AGP appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4 has submitted that as and when any scheme for allotment of any premises is contemplated for the earstwhile Cabin holders, the petitioner shall be at liberty to apply for such premises and his case will be considered within such scheme, if the petitioner was found to be eligible. Admittedly, the original petitioner has passed away and the heirs of the original petitioner have no objection to make an application, as above, as and when occasion arises for the same. The learned counsel for the petitioner fairly conceded that this petition may be disposed of with the abovesaid observations and directions that the case of the petitioner shall be sympathetically considered as and when they apply for an alternative site, of course subject to the eligibility and the parameter of the scheme, which may be available for the petitioner. 2. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of, subject to aforesaid observations and directions, as having become infructuous. Rule is discharged. Interim relief stands vacated. No order as to costs. (D. H. Waghela,J.) vrp