Jashiben W vs Bhanuben

JASHIBEN WD/O MAFAJI JUGAJI & 4....Petitioner(s) Versus BHANUBEN D/O KESHAVLAL JANI W/O MANUBHAI NATHABAI TRIVEDI &

7....Respondent(s) ========================================================== Appearance:

MR JV JAPEE, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 - 5 MR JK SHAH, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 6 JUCKY LUCKY CHAN, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 1 - 2 MR PRATIKSINH GOHIL, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 1 - 2 RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 6 - 8 UNSERVED-EXPIRED (R) for the Respondent(s) No. 3 - 5 ========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.L. SONI Date : 04/05/2016 COMMON ORAL ORDER

1. Learned advocate for the petitioners seeks permission to delete the respondent nos.3 to 5 as they are formal parties and their presence are not required for deciding the controversy raised in the present petition.

Permission, as sought for, is granted. The respondent nos.3 to 5 stand deleted from the cause­title of the petition.

2. Challenge made in the petition filed under Article 226 of the Page 1 of 3 HC-NIC Page 1 of 3 Created On Thu May 05 00:57:06 IST 2016 C/SCA/10687/2015 ORDER Constitution of India is against the order dated 06/04/2015 passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal (the 'Tribunal') in Review Application No.CA/50/2014.

3. Learned advocate Mr. Japee submitted that though for manifold grounds, the impugned order cannot stand scrutiny of law, however, only on ground of giving no hearing to the petitioners before passing the impugned order by the Tribunal, the impugned order requires to be set aside and the matter is required to be remanded to the Tribunal to hear and decide Review Application afresh in accordance with law.

4. Learned advocate Mr. Chan appearing for respondent nos.1 and 2­ the original applicants in Review Application before the Tribunal could not dispute that before passing the impugned order, the Tribunal did not accord hearing to the petitioners.

5. Learned AGP Mr. Shah could not point out while reading the impugned order that hearing was ever accorded to the petitioners before passing the impugned order.

6. In view of the above undisputed fact that the Tribunal before passing impugned order, did not give hearing to the petitioners, the impugned order can be set aside on limited ground of giving no hearing to the petitioners.

7. The impugned order is therefore quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to the Tribunal to hear and decide Review Application No.CA/50/2014 afresh on its own merits and in accordance with law after hearing all the concerned parties.

Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is Page 2 of 3 HC-NIC Page 2 of 3 Created On Thu May 05 00:57:06 IST 2016 C/SCA/10687/2015 ORDER permitted.

ORDER IN CIVIL APPLICATION:­ Since the main matter is disposed of, Civil Application does not survive. Hence, Civil Application stands disposed of accordingly.

(C.L.SONI, J.) aruna Page 3 of 3 HC-NIC Page 3 of 3 Created On Thu May 05 00:57:06 IST 2016