Lpa No. 2090 of 2011 · Gujarat High Court
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI Sd/- HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.J. DESAI ====================================== Sd/-
Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be NO allowed to see the judgment ?
To be referred to the Reporter or not ? NO
Whether their Lordships wish to see the NO fair copy of the judgment ?
Whether this case involves a substantial NO question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ?
Whether it is to be circulated to the civil NO judge ? ====================================== MANIBHAI PASHABHAI PATEL - Appellant Versus COLLECTOR, HIMMATNAGAR & 4 - Respondents ====================================== Appearance : MR ANIL S DAVE for Appellant. MS JIRGA JHAVERI, AGP for Respondents. ====================================== CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI LPA/2090/2011 JUDGMENT HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.J. DESAI Date : 10/04/2012 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI) Though board has been revised, none appears for the appellant. We have heard Ms. Jirga Jhaveri, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
2. This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 18.7.2011 of the learned Single Judge passed in Special Civil Application No.8276 of 2011 whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant herein – original petitioner.
3. The learned Single Judge has held in paragraph 6 of the judgment as under :-
6. In my view, this peculiar facts would be required to dissuade any court from granting any indulgence but this type of encroachment and request for regularization itself really unfortunate that the law is being used by this type of petitioner to perpetuate their initial illegal act of encroachment. The act of encroachment was not found to be sufficient and hence, one more attempt for seeking regularization by courts is made by this petition. One can understanding if there had been any policy pointed out in the representation or in the petition, of regularization of this huge LPA/2090/2011 JUDGMENT encroachment, than, some semblance of right could be inferred. In the instant case, their exists absolute no right much less, enforceable right and hence, in my view, this petition is in fact a sheer abuse of process of law and hence it deserves to be dismissed. The petition being bereft of any merits, deserves dismissal and is dismissed with costs.
4. Since the appellant has encroached the land and wants regularization of the encroachment, it is nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court. Therefore, we do not find any illegality in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. This appeal is devoid of any merits and it is accordingly dismissed. In view of dismissal of appeal, Civil Application does not survive and it is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- [V. M. SAHAI, J.] Sd/- [A. J. DESAI, J.] Savariya
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.