Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1615 (GUJ)

Mohammed Iqbal H Manjliya v. Union Of India

2022-11-24

ARAVIND KUMAR, ASHUTOSH J.SHASTRI

body2022
ORDER : ARAVIND KUMAR, J. 1. Heard Mr. Aftabhusen Ansari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. K. M. Antani, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the State. Perused the records. Though matter is listed for admission, by consent of learned advocates, it is taken up for final disposal. 2. Petitioners have sought for quashing of the resolution dated 27.06.2005 insofar as it relates to column No.15 of the schedule and consequently the order dated 15.07.2005 in so far as it concerns the gaucher land admeasuring about 198.18 acres situated in village : Luni, Taluka : Mundra. Alternatively it is prayed to provide alternate gaucher land in the village : Luni, Taluka : Mundra, District : Kutch out of the Government waste land proportionate to the number of cattle in the village which are more than 956 or to direct to allot the proper gaucher land which can be useful and appropriate for the purpose of cattle grazing at village : Luni. 3. It is the grievance of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that fertile land which was used for grazing purposes of the cattle in the Luni village came to be acquired for the purposes of Special Economic Zone are to be substituted by allotting an alternate land and same, though ordered to be allotted, in effect, has not been allotted and as such have sought for grant of prayer made in the writ petition by reiterating the grounds urged in the writ petition. 4. Per contra, Mr. K. M. Antani, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the State would seek for dismissal of the petition on the ground that order, which is sought to be quashed, has been subsequently examined by the co-ordinate Bench and directions have been issued which has since been implemented and as such there is no need or necessity for issue any further directions in this writ petition. 5. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties and on perusal of the records, we notice that very same order which is the subject matter of challenge in the present petition was questioned before this Court in earlier round of litigation in Writ Petition (PIL) No.152 of 2011 which came to be disposed of by order dated 07.08.2014. 5. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties and on perusal of the records, we notice that very same order which is the subject matter of challenge in the present petition was questioned before this Court in earlier round of litigation in Writ Petition (PIL) No.152 of 2011 which came to be disposed of by order dated 07.08.2014. The prayer sought for in the said Writ Petition i.e. Writ Petition (PIL) No.152 of 2011 was also for same, similar and identical reliefs which has been sought for in the present writ petition. During the pendency of the said writ petition, Government of Gujarat vide resolution dated 20.06.2013 issued by the Deputy Collector, Mundra, District : Kutch decided to reserve 85 hector 46 are 62 square meters land for the purpose of gaucher for the village Luni, Taluka Mundra, District : Kutch. It was pointed out to the then co-ordinate Bench that number of cattle at the Luni village as per the cattle register was only 522 and the number of cattle which is expected to increase in the next ten years at the rate of 10% would be 574 and applying the principle that area for gaucher of 16 hector for every 100 cattle, the aforesaid decision of allotting 85 hector 46 are 62 square meter has been arrived at. This order undisputedly attained finality. Alleging its non-implementation contempt petition was filed in Misc. Civil Application No.3305 of 2014. During the pendency of the said contempt application, the State filed its further affidavit-in-reply and brought to the notice of the Court adjudicating the contempt petition that out of total land admeasuring 85 hectors 46 are 62 square meter, the Gram Panchayat has been allotted and handed over possession of 38 hectare 94 are 96 square meter and it was stated on oath that the remaining land admeasuring 46 hectare 51 are 66 square meter of the land would be allotted as gaucher land and possession of the same would be handed over to Luni Gram Panchayat. 6. The communication dated 08.04.2022 by the member of Mundra Taluka Panchayat addressed to the Collector at Annexure-R would indicate that remaining land has also been allotted. However, the grievance of the petitioners seem to be that said land is not susceptible to be used as a gaucher land, namely, for grazing of the cattle. 6. The communication dated 08.04.2022 by the member of Mundra Taluka Panchayat addressed to the Collector at Annexure-R would indicate that remaining land has also been allotted. However, the grievance of the petitioners seem to be that said land is not susceptible to be used as a gaucher land, namely, for grazing of the cattle. In fact, we notice that the petitioners are attempting to seek dead cause of action being revived by filing this writ petition. We say so far the simple reason that in the contempt proceedings which was initiated by them at earlier point of time for alleged non-implementation of the order dated 07.08.2014 passed in Writ Petition (PIL) No.152 of 2011, the co-ordinate Bench by order dated 24.12.2014 had made the following observations:- "4.0. Having heard the learned advocates xxx application is disposed of. However, liberty is reserved in favour of the present applicant to revive the present application in case of difficulty and / or non compliance of the present order. "(emphasis supplied by us) 7. Instead of taking recourse to the said remedy available and provided to for the co-ordinate Bench, petitioner has attempted to revive the dead cause of action by filing the present petition. Hence, we are of the view that petition is liable to be rejected with costs. Accordingly, we do so and mulct the petitioners with cost of Rs.10,000/- payable to the Chief Minister's Relief Fund. 8. Yet another factor which cannot go unnoticed is that the impugned order is dated 27.06.2005 which was passed about 17 years back. In fact, this order was the subject matter of scrutiny by the co-ordinate Bench in Writ Petition (PIL) No.152 of 2011 and having obtained an order in said petition, yet petitioners seem to be beating around the bush by using different names, namely, in the first stage of litigation it was a different person who had initiated the proceedings namely it was filed by Mr.Shabbir Ali Mohammed Khalifa and 3 others and now the present petition has been filed by Mohammed Iqbal H. Manjliya who is a different person, claiming to be espousing the same public cause namely the cause which was espoused at earlier point of time had been examined, adjudicated and answered by this Court and yet petitioners herein have filed the present petition challenging the very same order which was challenged in Writ Petition (PIL) No.152 of 2011. It is for this reason also we are mulcting the petitioners with cost.