MANISH Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
STATE OF GUJARAT
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) Learned advocate Mr. Zubin Bharda submits that he is appearing for and on behalf of the respondent no.2 and he filed his
vakalatnama before the Registry yesterday, but his name is not
mentioned in the cause list. Registry shall mention the name of
learned advocate Mr. Zubin Bharda appearing for the respondent
no.2 in the cause list.
(2.) Heard learned advocate for the applicants submits that land in question was purchased from the original land owners and
application for getting permission under Section 65 of the Bombay
Land Revenue Code for bonafide industrial use was made and the
same was granted vide order dated 14.06.2018. It is further
submitted that permission under Section 65 of the BLRC was
granted only after making detailed inquiry by the revenue officer in
respect of the title and situation of the land in question. That, no
objection, till date, was raised by the first informant or his family
members against the grant of permission. That, FIR was registered
at the instance of some rivals in the town with a view to harass
present applicants. Learned advocate for the applicants has referred
certain documents of removing entries in the revenue record by the
predecessor of the first informant as well as permission granted by
the competent authority dated 14.06.2018 under Section 65 of the
Bombay Land Revenue Code as well as order of the Town Planning
and Assessment Department, Valsad dated 26.09.2018. Lastly,
learned advocate for the applicants requested to protect the present
applicants under the circumstances.
(3.) Learned advocate appearing for the respondent no.2 has strongly objected for granting interim relief as prayed for by the
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.