Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 2181 (GUJ)

Babubhai Mafatbhai Patel v. State Of Gujarat

2024-12-10

PRANAV TRIVEDI, SUNITA AGARWAL

body2024
JUDGMENT : (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI) 1. Present appeal preferred under Clause-15 of the Letters Patent is assailing the legality and validity of the Judgment dated 10.3.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 18463 of 2015. 2. The prayers in the writ petition was to declare the allotment of land admeasuring 1037.72 sq. mtrs and 593.68 sq. mtrs of land from petitioner's land bearing revenue Survey No. 702, Village: Makarba, District: Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as 'the disputed land' for short) as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. Further prayers were made to quash and set-aside the allotment orders dated 4.6.2013, 19.8.2013 and 23.1.2014. It was further prayed to declare that the possession of the land in question was not taken by the State authorities legally and, therefore, they be restrained to take possession of the land admeasuring around 1330 sq. mtrs of survey No. 702/2. 3. The learned Single Judge was pleased to dismiss the writ petition by way of impugned order which is now assailed in the present appeal. 4. The facts which has led to filing of the writ petition and consequently the present appeal are as under: 4.1 One Parvatiben Bhaichandbhai had purchased land admeasuring about 5041 sq. yards bearing revenue survey No. 702 of Village: Makarba by way of a registered sale-deed dated 22.10.1971 from Laljibhai Shyamaldas. Pursuant thereto a mutation entry came to be effected vide entry No. 4990 on 12.12.1971 in revenue record Form No.6. It seems that with respect to the sale-deed, proceedings under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the tenancy Act' for short) were initiated, however, on 4.1.1973, by way of entry No. 5051, it was recorded that the proceedings under Section 84(C) of the Tenancy Act were closed. Subsequently, partition was made in the said land. On 26.7.1973, vide another entry No. 5091 partition in revenue survey No. 702 was recorded. 4.2 Subsequent to the partition and on implementation of the Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Ceiling Act' for short), Parvatiben Bhaichandbhai submitted a declaration in Form No.6/1 of the Ceiling Act wherein land reflected in the name of Parvatiben Bhaichandbhai was about 5041 sq. yards in revenue survey No. 702 paiki. 4.2 Subsequent to the partition and on implementation of the Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Ceiling Act' for short), Parvatiben Bhaichandbhai submitted a declaration in Form No.6/1 of the Ceiling Act wherein land reflected in the name of Parvatiben Bhaichandbhai was about 5041 sq. yards in revenue survey No. 702 paiki. On 7.6.1983, another mutation entry being entry No. 5919 was recorded wherein the partition in the revenue survey No. 702 paiki was shown. In land bearing survey No. 702 paiki, around land admeasuring 7662 sq. mtrs was reflected in the name of Tarulataben whereas about 5041 sq. yards was reflected in the name of Parvatiben, i.e. wife of Bhaichandbhai. 4.3 In the year 1983, one Kamalnayan Pandit filed Civil Suit No. 406/1983 against Parvatiben Bhaichandbhai claiming possession in the said land and restraining Parvatiben Bhaichandbhai from making any obstruction. An injunction against the defendant therein. 4.4 The competent authority initiated proceedings under Section 8(4) of the Ceiling Act and by order dated 6.9.1984, an area admeasuring 3214.33 sq. mtrs from the disputed land has been declared as excess vacant land, while allowing the owners to retain 1000 sq. mtrs of land only. An appeal was preferred by Parvatiben Bhaichandbhai before the Special Secretary, wherein by interim order dated 5.11.1984, the authorities under Ceiling Act had been restrained to initiate further action qua the disputed land subject to certain conditions. One of the conditions specified therein was that Parvatiben Bhaichandbhai could not sell or alienate or change the disputed land and the status-quo as prevailed qua the disputed land on 17.2.1976 had to be maintained. 4.5 During the pendency of the said appeal, another civil suit came to be filed by one Kamalnayan Pandit against Parvatiben Bhaichandbhai and others for specific performance of agreement to sell, which was numbered as Civil Suit No. 83 of 1985. During the pendency of the civil suit as well as the appeal before the Special Secretary, an agreement to sell came to be executed by Parvatiben Bhaichandbhai in favour of the writ petitioner qua the disputed land for an area admeasuring 4214 sq. mtrs, subject to the decisions rendered in the appeal proceedings as well as the civil suit No. 83 of 1985. Further an irrevocable Power of Attorney came to be executed by Parvatiben Bhaichandbhai in favour of the petitioner on 27.10.1986. mtrs, subject to the decisions rendered in the appeal proceedings as well as the civil suit No. 83 of 1985. Further an irrevocable Power of Attorney came to be executed by Parvatiben Bhaichandbhai in favour of the petitioner on 27.10.1986. Subsequent to the agreement to sell and the execution of the irrevocable Power of Attorney, a Will came to be executed by Parvatiben Bhaichandbhai bequeathing the disputed land in favour of the petitioner and his wife Kantaben Babulal Patel. 5. The appeal which was filed by Parvatiben Bhaichandbhai before the Special Secretary came to be dismissed vide order dated 2.3.1989. The order dated 2.3.1989 has not been challenged anywhere and, thus, has attained finality. Subsequent thereto, Smt. Parvatiben Bhaichandbhai had died on 25.10.1989. 6. It is the case of the petitioner that subsequent to the death of Parvatiben, their names came to be mutated in revenue records as per the Will of Parvatiben Bhaichandbhai. However, mutation entry was not certified as the names of heirs of Smt. Parvatiben were not mutated. Be that as it may, notification under Section 10(3) of the Ceiling Act was published in the Government Gazette on 23.8.1990. Another notification under Section 10(5) of the Ceiling Act was issued to handover the possession of the disputed land within 30 days. It is the case of the petitioner that proceedings, as envisaged under Section 10(6) of the Act, had never taken place. On 3.12.1991, panchnama was drawn which indicated that the possession of the land was taken over by the State Government. 7. It is case of the petitioner that it was as paper possession and actual possession had not been taken. However, on 1.2.1992, an application was addressed by the petitioner to the competent authority that he is legaty under the Will of Smt. Parvatiben and it was further informed that a petition has been preferred before the High Court challenging the proceedings under the Ceiling Act. 8. However, it is categorically accepted by the petitioner that no petition was actually preferred and there is no record to show that any challenge was made. 9. It is also on record that the competent authority had addressed a letter to the petitioner requesting the petitioner to send copy of the petition as well as any order passed by the High Court with regard to the proceedings initiated by the competent authority under the Ceiling Act. 9. It is also on record that the competent authority had addressed a letter to the petitioner requesting the petitioner to send copy of the petition as well as any order passed by the High Court with regard to the proceedings initiated by the competent authority under the Ceiling Act. The communication dated 1.2.1992 has gone un-answered. 10. After death of Smt. Parvatiben, a compromise was arrived between the original plaintiff of Civil Suit No. 83 of 1985, i.e. Shri Kamalnayan Pandit and the petitioner being the Power of Attorney holder of heirs of Smt. Parvatiben Bhaichanddas. The compromise was entered for 4368 yards of land which included the excess land declared in the ceiling proceedings. 11. On 4.1.1999, grandchildren of Smt. Parvatiben, the original owner initiated a Suit being Civil Suit No. 6 of 1999 for setting aside the compromise decree passed in Civil Suit No. 83 of 1985 against Kamalnayan Pandit and other heirs of Smt. Parvatiben as well as the petitioner. 12. Despite various civil suits filed by the parties against each other, it remains undisputed that the competent authority had proceeded with the ceiling proceedings and panchnama was drawn whereafter the excess land was vested in favour of the Government. Mutation entry No. 8251 was also entered on 13.5.1999 declaring that the excess land, i.e. 3214 sq. mtrs of land was vested under the provisions of the Ceiling Act by the Government. 13. After the excess land had been vested with the Government, a sale-deed came to be executed by the petitioner on 9.7.2008 with regards to the 1000 sq. mtrs of land which was retainable land. The said sale-deed was executed by the petitioner in his own favour in the role of himself being Power of Attorney holder of heirs of Smt. Parvatiben. However, as far as excess land is concerned, another issue cropped up. There were proceedings under the Ceiling Act in favour of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the respondents’) for a different parcel of land. Various litigations were initiated and eventually it came to the knowledge of the State Government that the land belonging to the respondents was wrongly declared as the excess land and, therefore, option was given to the respondents to take any other parcel of land which was in the possession of the State Government being excess land qua other survey number. Various litigations were initiated and eventually it came to the knowledge of the State Government that the land belonging to the respondents was wrongly declared as the excess land and, therefore, option was given to the respondents to take any other parcel of land which was in the possession of the State Government being excess land qua other survey number. In the backdrop of the same, the land admeasuring 1037.72 sq. mtrs and 593.68 sq. mtrs totalling to around 1620 sq. mtrs from the excess land declared from the land in question came to be allotted to the respondents. The allotment was made in the year 2013 and 2014; respectively. 14. The petitioner, however, preferred the present petition challenging the action of the competent authority with regard to the total excess land of around 3214 sq. mtrs being contrary to law. It was also prayed by the petitioner that the Hon’ble Court may further declare the allotment of land admeasuring about 1037 sq. mtrs and 593.68 sq. mtrs in favour of the respondents to be bad in law and such allotment orders dated 4.6.2013, 19.8.2013 and 23.1.2014 be quashed and set-aside. 15. We have heard Mr. Mihir Thakore, learned senior counsel with Mr. Harshadray A. Dave, learned advocate for the appellant, Mr. Shalin Mehta, learned senior counsel with Mr. Tattvam Patel and Mr. Viral K. Shah, learned advocates for the respondents and Ms. Hetal Patel, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent- State. 16. Mr. Mihir Thakore, learned senior counsel, after taking the Court to the facts of the case has vehemently contended that it is evident from the material on record that the possession of the excess land was never taken by the competent authority in the year 1991. Once the possession was not taken until the date of the repeal of the Act, i.e. 30.3.1999, the possession continued to be with the land owner and for this reason only the petitioners are required to be declared as having lawful possession of the land and the notice dated 11.11.1990 under Section 10(5) of the Ceiling Act is liable to be quashed and set-aside. 17. It was further submitted that the competent authority has not followed the procedure under the Ceiling Act. The panchnama drawn for taking possession of the land has not been signed by the panch-witnesses or the surveyors. 17. It was further submitted that the competent authority has not followed the procedure under the Ceiling Act. The panchnama drawn for taking possession of the land has not been signed by the panch-witnesses or the surveyors. Further, the land sought to be held as retainable land by the original owner and later acquired by the present petitioner is a landlock land which could not have been allotted as retainable land. It was argued that once proper procedure of taking possession is not adhered to by the competent authority the land in question could not have been declared as excess land. After repeal of the Ceiling Act, the land would revert back to the present petitioner. It was further submitted by Mr. Thakore that panchnama prepared in Civil Suit No. 6 of 1999 as well as the Municipal Bills clearly establish that the possession of the property was retained by the petitioner. It was further submitted that the letter addressed by the Section Officer to the Collector dated 17.5.2017 clearly revealed that the Government has accepted that the alleged possession taken on 3.12.1999 was without notice to the heirs of the deceased Smt. Parvatiben and, therefore, panchnama becomes questionable. It, thus, cannot be said that valid possession of the excess declared land was ever taken by the State Government. 18. It was further contended that even the mutation entry in favour of the State Government in respect of the excess land was made after two months of the repeal of the Ceiling Act. This fact clearly transpires that valid possession was not taken by the State Government. 19. Further, extract of village Form No. 7/12 shows ownership of the petitioner over 597 sq. mtrs while that of the State over 3214 sq. mtrs. Even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that the petitioner is having possession only of the retainable land, the same could not have been less than 1000 sq. mtrs. All these facts together will lead to only one conclusion that the possession of the land in question had not been taken in accordance with law by following due process under the provisions of the Ceiling Act. The benefit of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulations) Repeal Act, 1999, thus, cannot be denied to the appellant. 20. It was further submitted by Mr. The benefit of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulations) Repeal Act, 1999, thus, cannot be denied to the appellant. 20. It was further submitted by Mr. Thakore that the original declarant i.e. Smt. Parvatiben had expired on 25.8.1989 while notice under Section 10(5) of the Ceiling Act was issued on 11.11.1990. The notice issued in the name of a dead person is no notice in the eye of law and can never be presumed to be a legal and valid notice served on the owner. For non-compliance of mandatory provisions of the Ceiling Act, the impugned judgment given by learned Single Judge is unjust and improper. 21. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Hariram, reported in (2013) 4 SCC 280 to submit that as the procedure under the provisions of the Ceiling Act was not adhered to, the land ought to have been reverted back to the petitioner-appellant. 22. It was submitted by Mr. Thakore that there was no suppression of any material facts in the petition. The learned Single Judge has wrongly dismissed the writ petition on the ground of suppression where there is nothing on record which would show any suppression by the petitioner. Further, the State Government has not controverted any of the statements made in the petition and non-denial of the averments made in the petition amounts to admission on the part of the Government. This aspect has been completely overlooked by the learned Single Judge. 23. It was further submitted by Mr. Thakore, learned senior counsel that the allotment of the land to the respondent is also one of the causes for approaching this Court for seeking necessary relief. There cannot be any bar or delay on the part of the petitioner-appellant in approaching this Court. The allotment to the respondent was made in the year 2013-14 and the petition was filed in the year 2015, itself and the petition has been preferred not only with respect to the grant of benefit of the Repeal Act, but also in respect of the land which has been allotted to the respondents. This issue has not been properly considered by learned Single Judge. As a matter of fact, there is a fraud committed by the respondent in connivance with the Officers of the State Government in getting the land of the petitioner illegally. 24. This issue has not been properly considered by learned Single Judge. As a matter of fact, there is a fraud committed by the respondent in connivance with the Officers of the State Government in getting the land of the petitioner illegally. 24. It was further submitted that even it is assumed without admitting that the petitioner-appellant has no right in respect of the excess land then also there is no proper earmark regarding area of the retainable land and the revenue record is also not correct according to the actual area of the retainable land. In the wake of such submissions, Mr. Thakore submitted to allow the present appeal and quash and set aside the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge and further declare that the possession of excess land was never taken by the State Government and the excess land belongs to the petitioner herein. 25. Per contra, Mr. Shalin Mehta, learned senior counsel for the respondent has submitted that before going into the issue of allotment of land, certain factual aspects need to be verified. On 6.9.1984, the competent authority had declared 3214 sq. mtr of land as excess land. No third party right in the excess land, thereafter, could be created in any manner whatsoever. The order of the competent authority was served to the original declarant, i.e. Parvatiben. The original declarant, i.e. Parvatiben who had also preferred appeal before the Special Secretary under the Ceiling Act. On 5.11.1984, an interim order was passed in appeal restraining the ceiling authority from proceeding further on the condition that owners shall not in any manner transfer the land in question. During the pendency of the said order, the agreement to sell was executed by the original declarant, i.e. Parvatiben in favour of the present petition. Further during the existence of the interim order dated 5.11.1984, an irrevocable Power of Attorney was executed by Parvatiben in favour of the petitioner. The alleged rights given to the petitioner by the original declarant were in fragrant violation of the order dated 5.11.1984 of the competent appellate authority. Therefore, primarily locus of the petitioner is in itself doubtful proposition. 26. It was further contended that the land in question was declared as excess land and the panchnama was drawn vesting the land into State Government. The mutation entry to that effect was made in the year 1999 itself. Therefore, primarily locus of the petitioner is in itself doubtful proposition. 26. It was further contended that the land in question was declared as excess land and the panchnama was drawn vesting the land into State Government. The mutation entry to that effect was made in the year 1999 itself. There is a communication by the competent authority to the petitioner requesting to provide the details of any proceeding initiated by the original declarant or the petitioner before this Court. This communication was not answered by the petitioner. Once the land in question was vested with the State Government in the year 1999, the petitioner has left with no right to challenge the possession after a gap of 24 years in the year 2015. The petition suffers from gross delays and laches on the part of the petitioner. 27. It was further submitted by Mr. Mehta, learned senior counsel that the fact that the order dated 5.11.1984 was passed by the appellate authority in Appeal No.1585/24 has been suppressed in the writ petition. Even the appeal preferred by the original declarant was dismissed in the year 1989. There is a further suppression of the fact that the heirs of the original declarant, i.e. Parvatiben had filed Civil Suit No. 2101 of 2013 before the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad praying for declaration of ownership in the land in question and for quashing of the order passed under the Ceiling Act. This fact has been completely withheld from this Court mainly for two reasons. The pendency of the Civil Suit clearly establishes that though the petitioner-appellant is claiming right over the land in question by way of Will, but the natural heirs of the original declarant, i.e. Parvitaben are also claiming their right. 28. There is a further mis-representation by the petitioner. As a matter of fact, the petitioner has purchased only some portion of the retainable land and is claiming the right over the same. Having obtained right over the retainable land, the petitioner-appellant is trying to mislead the Hon’ble Court by making an averment that he is in possession of the surplus land. The appeal is required to be dismissed on this ground alone and the order passed by the learned Single Judge is required to be upheld. 29. Having obtained right over the retainable land, the petitioner-appellant is trying to mislead the Hon’ble Court by making an averment that he is in possession of the surplus land. The appeal is required to be dismissed on this ground alone and the order passed by the learned Single Judge is required to be upheld. 29. Having considered the submissions made by both the learned Senior Advocates for the parties and perused the record, we may record that the issue is with regard to the declaration of the excess land of 3214 sq. mtrs in Survey No. 702/2 at Village: Makarba, Ahmedabad. The main thrust of the arguments of learned Senior Counsel for the appellant is that, the possession taken by the competent authority under the Ceiling Act is a paper possession. It was further contended that through various compromises in the Civil Suit, the right of the land including the retainable land as well as the excess land had been obtained by the petitioner from the original declarant, i.e. Parvatiben. The contention is that once the possession has not been taken, the land is required to be declared in the possession of the petitioner and benefit of Section 4 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulations) Repeal Act, 1999 needs to be given to the petitioner – appellant. The prima-facie contention of the petitioner, thus, is that the cause of action has arisen due to some portion of the excess land was also given to the respondents. The petitioner has challenged both the actions, i.e. (i) allotment of the excess land in favour of the respondents; and (2) the possession of excess land shown in the name of the State Government. 30. The petitioner-appellant has tried to make out a case in his favour by show-causing that the action of giving excess land was of the year 2014, and hence there cannot be any delay in challenging the paper possession of the year 1991 as the petitioner was continuously in possession of the disputed excess land. 31. This whole issue or the purported case of the petitioner is manifestly illegal with one particular clinching fact amongst other material issues. 31. This whole issue or the purported case of the petitioner is manifestly illegal with one particular clinching fact amongst other material issues. The petitioner-appellant has executed a sale-deed dated 9.7.2008 acting as a Power of Attorney of the heirs of original declarant, i.e. Parvatiben in favour of himself which is appended at Page-'262' of the paper-book of the petition which is filed by the respondents. In the said saledeed at page-'268' of the paper-book, there is a categorical declaration by the petitioner-appellant that 3214 sq. mtrs of land in Survey No. 702 has been declared as excess land and that it has been vested with the State Government. It is also declared in the sale-deed that the State Government has taken possession of the excess land and mutation entry of the same has been made in the revenue records. 32. Having declared that the excess land had gone and vested with the State Government, the sale-deed was made only with regard to 1000 sq. mtrs retainable land. The petitioner has suppressed these facts in the writ petition. When the petitioner has declared himself in the year 2008 that excess land had been vested with the State Government he cannot be permitted to raise the challenge to the action of the competent authority of taking possession of the land in question in the year 1991. The challenge by the petitioner, therefore, is manifestly illegal. It is undisputed that the panchnama was drawn declaring transfer of possession of the excess land in favour of the State Government. Mutation entry to that effect was made. Petitioner himself has acknowledged the possession of State Government and vesting of land in State Government in the sale-deed, executed by him, dated 9.7.2008. The challenge made by petition-appellant praying for granting benefit of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulations) Repeal Act, 1999 is, thus, found to be misleading. The decision in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Hariram (supra) relied by the petitioner would be of no help. 33. Further, there are other factors too which go to the root of the matter. The petitioner-appellant is claiming right over the excess land through the transfer made by original declarant, i.e. Parvatiben which was in violation of the interim order passed by the appellate authority. 33. Further, there are other factors too which go to the root of the matter. The petitioner-appellant is claiming right over the excess land through the transfer made by original declarant, i.e. Parvatiben which was in violation of the interim order passed by the appellate authority. The documents on the basis of which the petitioner –appellant is claiming reliefs are all doubtful documents and further that they were executed contrary to the order passed by the appellate authority. Further, there is a gross suppression of correct facts by the petitioner-appellant in the original writ petition. The fact of the order dated 5.11.1984 passed by the appellate authority is not on record. Further, when the order dated 5.11.1984 was carried in appeal, there was a condition for staying the appeal and the said condition was breached by the original declarant and the present petitioner by entering into an agreement to sell. The factum of dismissal of the appeal is, thus, in knowledge of the petitioner. This can be observed through the communication dated 1.2.1992 appended at Page-219 of the paper-book. This communication is sent by the petitioner-appellant informing the competent authority not to proceed with any other aspect under the Ceiling Act as a writ petition was preferred before this Court. 34. Therefore, the bundle of suppressed material facts, i.e. (i) Knowledge of the dismissal of appeal under the Ceiling Act; (ii) finality attached to the proceedings under the provision of the Ceiling Act pursuant to the dismissal of the appeal; and (iii) acceptance of the petitioner-appellant in the sale-deed dated 9.7.2008 with regards to the land having been vested with the State Government; would render the challenge made by the petitioner-appellant to the proceedings under the Ceiling Act redundant. This aspect coupled with the fact that all these material facts have been suppressed by the petitioner-appellant, we do not find merit in the contentions raised by the petitioner-appellant. 35. One more aspect highlighted by the appellant is that the notice under the Ceiling Act was issued to a dead person, i.e. Smt. Parvatiben. The said aspect will also not come to the aid of the appellant, inasmuch as, there is nothing on record that the factum of death of original declerant was informed to the competent authority. 35. One more aspect highlighted by the appellant is that the notice under the Ceiling Act was issued to a dead person, i.e. Smt. Parvatiben. The said aspect will also not come to the aid of the appellant, inasmuch as, there is nothing on record that the factum of death of original declerant was informed to the competent authority. There is nothing on record to indicate that the competent authorities were made aware about the death of the original declarant, i.e. Smt. Parvatiben by the legal heirs of of the declerant. The petitioner-appellant had illegally tried to enter into the shoes of the original declarant i.e. Smt. Parvatiben by executing a document which was in violation of the order passed by the appellate authority. The challenge to the proceedings under the Ceiling Act on the contention that notice under Section 10(5) was issued in the name of a dead person would, thus, cannot come to the aid of the petitioner-appellant. 36. Further, the communication dated 1.2.1992 would clearly reflect that the petitioner-appellant had full knowledge of the notice as well as the proceedings conducted under the Ceiling Act. There was no challenge to the said proceeding at the relevant point of time. The challenge was made for the first time in the year 2015 to the ceiling proceedings which commenced in the year 1990. There is a gross delay in bringing the challenge. 37. There is one more factor with regard to the civil suit being Civil Suit No. 2101 of 2013. The natural heirs of original declarant i.e. Smt. Parvatiben are claiming right over the property by way of civil suit. The petitioner-appellant has not obtained any succession certificate on the alleged Will. Therefore, when the dispute with regard to the question of succession of the declarant, i.e. Smt. Parvatiben is pending between the petitioner and the natural heirs of Smt. Parvatiben the right to retain possession of the excess land cannot be claimed by the petitioner-appellant. All these issues go against the petitioner-appellant over and above the issue on merits as well as delay and suppression. 37. The case agitated by the petitioner-appellant is, thus, found without any basis and we see no reason to interfere with the decision of the learned Single Judge. The present appeal is devoid of merits and is hereby rejected. No order as to costs. 37. The case agitated by the petitioner-appellant is, thus, found without any basis and we see no reason to interfere with the decision of the learned Single Judge. The present appeal is devoid of merits and is hereby rejected. No order as to costs. Resultantly, the connected Civil Applications also stand disposed of. FURTHER ORDER When the judgment was pronounced, Mr. Harshadray A. Dave, learned advocate appearing for the appellant has requested the Court to stay the order for a period of eight weeks so as to enable the appellant to avail the remedy of approaching the higher forum. Considering the facts and circumstances, The Court was not inclined to accept the request and it was accordingly rejected.