2013 (2) TMI 847

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....fit and proper. C) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the res.no.3 to issue N.O.C. for N.A. purpose of the land of the petitioner's land bearing S.No.772 and 785 of Chanasma, Dist: Patan and further direction to the res.no.2 to grant N.A. permission on condition of deposit of Rs. 1,15,917/- and Rs. 1,82,277/- i.e. for Rs. 2,98,194/- subject to result of Special Civil Application No.8997/2012, in the interest of justice." 2. Briefly stated, the relevant facts are that the applicant has filed Special Civil Application No.8997 of 2012 challenging the order passed by respondent No.3 levying development charges regarding the land of the applicant at Survey Nos.772 and 785 at Chanasma, District Patan. In the petition, the petitione....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ubmitted that the prayers made by the applicant in the present application are substantially the same as those made in the petition and the grant of prayers made in the application would amount to deciding the writ petition which cannot be done at this stage, therefore, the application may be rejected. 5. In support of the above submissions, reliance has been placed upon the following judgments: (1) P.R.Sinh v. Inder Krishan Raina, (1996) 1 SCC 681 (2) State of U.P. v. Ram Sukhi Devi, (2005)9 SCC 733 (3) Raja Khan v. U.P.Sunni Central Waqf Board, (2011)2 SCC 741 6. Mr.Viral J.Dave, learned Assistant Government Pleader has supported the stand taken by learned advocate for respondent No.3 and has submitted that grant of the pra....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....made in the petition which, is not permissible. 9. In P.R.Sinh v. Inder Krishan Raina (Supra), the Supreme Court has held as below: "6. This Court has pointed out repeatedly that while entertaining the writ petition the High Court should not pass interim order, the nature of which is to grant a relief which can be granted only at the final disposal of such a writ petition. Reference in this connection may be made to the case of State of J&K v. Mohd.Yaqoob Khan." 10. In State of U.P. v. Ram Sukhi Devi (Supra), the same proposition of law has been reiterated and explained by the Supreme Court in the following terms: "8.To say the least, approach of the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench is judicially unsustainable and ind....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Dr. Ashok Kumar Kohli (1995 Supp (4) SCC 214).] No basis has been indicated as to why learned Single Judge thought the course as directed was necessary to be adopted. Even it was not indicated that a prima facie case was made out though as noted above that itself is not sufficient. We, therefore, set aside the order passed by learned Single Judge as affirmed by the Division Bench and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case we have interfered primarily on the ground that the final relief has been granted at an interim stage without justifiable reasons. Since the controversy lies within a very narrow compass, we request the High Court to dispose of the matter as early as practicable, preferably within six months from the date....