Professional Documents
Culture Documents
IN
1
REPORTABLE
Versus
JUDGMENT
and in the area under the jurisdiction of the City Civil Court,
And again:-
passed:
order:
right) when in all decided cases the Court has confined juris-
ing6.
and again taken the view that remedy of writ as a ‘public law
cised only when the “person aggrieved” comes before the con-
others8.
(f) The High Court, under the impugned order, has virtu-
fact been done before many years], how the amount of com-
[who never took recourse to any legal remedy] are now per-
following contentions:
mental Right of the said sufferers. For the said purpose, they
12 (1994) 3 SCC 1
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
15
the law and order situation and there was a failure, the High
(c) In the instant case, the petitioner before the High Court
during the crucial period for whatever reason and for which
(e) The argument that the High Court has created a forum
sider such plea and report to the High Court. That apart, the
when the High Court can wait because it has not finally dis-
ure, the State is liable to pay the damages for the same.
the principle that the State has failed to fulfill its fundamen-
Union of India18.
no law for compensation for such losses and the same are
laid down to deal with exigencies till the law for the same is
(supra).
(i) As there had been failure of law and order situation at the
fore the High Court did not project the case of any individual.
also taken note of the fact that the reports submitted by the
NHRC on the incident were not laid before the State Legisla-
or bodies that look after the religious places which were dam-
same.
ately clarify that the learned senior counsel appearing for the
spring up to action.
JJ., held:
held:
for each other. This principle has been accepted in the con-
State will create a dent in the secular fabric and further the
stitution.
like, had initiated suo motu proceedings. It had called for re-
following guidelines:
shall be operative.
respondents. The factual matrix in the said case was that the
of the appellant and took into account that the appellant had
question did not have the force of law and even if it did, a writ
and opined:
And again:
worship.
held thus:
others30 and opined that the said decisions did not really
x x x x x
tion.
ments.
other39 and required the learned counsel for the State of Gu-
“GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
Resolution No. RHL/102012/SLP/15730/12/S.4
Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar
Dated : 18.10.2013
Read : 1. G.R. RD No. RHL/1070/60691/S4,
dated 14.07.1970
2. G.R. RD No. RHL/2185/156/84/S4,
39 (2009) 17 SCC 90
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
45
dated 29.03.1986
3. G.R. RD No. RHL/2390/3456/54,
dated 05.05.1991
4. G.R. RD No. RHL/102012/SLP/15730/12/S.4,
dated 9.8.2012
PREAMBLE:
RESOLUTION:
40. In the present case, similar direction was given and the
worthy to note that while fixing the maximum limit, the Gov-
ernment has equated the same with houses which have been
said scheme.
der passed by the High Court is set aside and the appeal is
costs.
...........................................CJI
[Dipak Misra]
.….................................................J.
[Prafulla C. Pant]
New Delhi;
August 29, 2017.