D N RAY

The Gujarat State Election Commission sought to stay the by‑elections for two councilor seats in Devgadh Bariya Municipality, arguing that the removal of the incumbents under Section 3 of the Gujarat Provisions of Disqualification of Members of Local Authorities for Defection Act, 1986 was being challenged before the w…

The High Court of Gujarat entertained a review application filed by Jagdishbhai Lakhubhai Patel seeking relief against the State of Gujarat and others. The Court first condoned the delay in filing the review, noting no serious objection. The applicant argued that a 379 sq.m. area reserved for a town‑planning road under…

The High Court of Gujarat dismissed an intra‑court appeal filed by Mehsana District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd challenging a single judge's order that found the bank and its officers in contempt for executing a sale deed after an interim stay order. The interim order of 07‑01‑2021 had stayed the implementation of an …

The petitioner filed a special criminal application under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Surksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking quashing of FIR I.CR.No. 11206020241182/2024 registered at Kadi Police Station, Mehsana, for offences under Sections 87 and 137(2) of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023. The respondent No.3, the orig…

Vikrambhai @Pintu Lakshmanbhai Jesangbhai Rajput challenged his conviction under IPC sections 341, 354, 323, 114 and 354(A)(1)(i). The applicant claimed he had settled with the complainant, Ushaben, and therefore the proceedings should be closed. A coordinate bench order dated 08‑05‑2026 had already quashed the convict…

The petitioner was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for issuing a dishonoured cheque of Rs.9,30,000 and appealed the conviction. Along with the appeal, the petitioner filed a C.R.M.A. seeking condonation of delay, which the trial judge allowed but imposed a condition that the petitioner dep…

The petitioner, Jigneshbhai Gunvantray Jagda, filed a special criminal application seeking quash of the conviction warrant. It was admitted that the entire cheque amount for which the conviction was based had been paid in full. The court considered whether the conviction warrant could be altered in light of the payment…

The petitioners, land owners, challenged the award dated 30.05.2020 which granted only the base market value (multiplication factor I) and omitted the additional compensation under Section 30(3) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (RFCTLARR A…

The petitioners, co‑owners of land acquired for a national highway, challenged the award dated 01‑06‑2020 for failing to grant the additional compensation of 12% under Section 30(3) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (the 2013 Act) on the ma…

The petitioners sought the benefit of additional compensation under Section 30(3) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, calculated on the market value that includes the multiplication factor‑2 under Section 26(2). The Court first deleted petit…

The petitioners, owners of land acquired under the National Highways Act, challenged an award dated 30.05.2020 which had determined market value using the multiplication factor‑2 under Section 26(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, but ha…

The petitioners, owners of land acquired under the National Highways Act, 1956, challenged an award dated 08.01.2020 that computed market value using the multiplication factor 2 under Section 26(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, but den…

The petitioners challenged an award dated 28‑09‑2020 in which the market value of land acquired under the National Highways Act was computed using the multiplication factor 2 under Section 26(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, but the ad…

The legal heirs of the late Gohil Bhagavandas sought the benefit of Section 30(3) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, i.e., an additional 12% compensation on the market value of land that had been determined using the multiplication factor o…

The petitioners, Hemanshu Mahasukhbai Bhatt & ors., filed a special civil application before the High Court of Gujarat seeking permission to withdraw the petition and to file a fresh petition with better particulars. The learned counsel for the petitioners, Ms. Shalini S. Mair, made the request. The Court, after brief …

The petitioners challenged an award dated 28‑09‑2020 for land acquired under the National Highways Act, alleging that the award failed to grant the 12% additional compensation under Section 30(3) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (the 2013 …

The petitioners, land owners affected by a National Highways acquisition, claimed they were denied the additional compensation of 12% per annum under Section 30(3) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, calculated on the market value that inclu…

The petitioners, a large group of land owners, challenged the award dated 30.01.2020 for failing to grant them the 12% additional compensation under Section 30(3) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (RFCTLARR Act) on the market value that inc…

The petitioners challenged an award dated 08.01.2020 under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, which had applied the multiplication factor 2 under Section 26(2) to determine market value but had granted the additional compensation of 12% per an…

The petitioners, a large group of land owners, challenged the award dated 15‑01‑2020 which computed the market value of their land using the multiplication factor 2 under Section 26(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, but granted the addi…

The petitioners, a group of land owners, challenged the award dated 28‑09‑2020 for land acquired under the National Highways Act, alleging that the additional compensation of 12% per annum under Section 30(3) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 20…

The petitioners challenged an award dated 15‑01‑2020 under the National Highways Act, 1956, which had computed the market value of their land using the multiplication factor 2 prescribed in Section 26(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, b…

The petitioners, a group of land owners, challenged the award dated 08.01.2020 for failing to grant the 12% additional compensation under Section 30(3) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (RFCTLARR Act) on the market value that includes the m…

The petitioners, legal heirs of the late Gohil, challenged an award dated 08‑01‑2020 that computed the market value of land acquired under the National Highways Act using the multiplication factor 2 under Section 26(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettleme…

The petitioners, heirs of land owners whose property was acquired for a national highway, claimed that the award dated 23‑02‑2018 failed to grant them the 12 % additional compensation under Section 30(3) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (t…

The petitioners challenged the award dated 30.05.2020 for land acquired under the National Highways Act, alleging that the additional compensation of 12% per annum under Section 30(3) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (2013 Act) was calcula…

The petitioners challenged an award dated 30‑May‑2020 that failed to grant the 12% additional compensation under Section 30(3) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 on the market value calculated with the multiplication factor 2 under Section 2…

The petitioners challenged the award dated 23‑02‑2018 for failing to grant the 12 % additional compensation under Section 30(3) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (the 2013 Act) on the market value that includes the multiplication factor 2 u…

The petitioners, land owners whose lands were acquired for a national highway, challenged the award dated 30.05.2020 for not granting the additional compensation of 12% per annum under Section 30(3) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (RFCTLA…

The petitioners sought to uphold revenue entries relating to land transferred by a 1985 will and subsequent sale deeds, arguing that the will did not constitute a prohibited transfer under Section 63 of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1948. The Collector, invoking Section 84C, cancelled the entries on th…

The petitioners sought to uphold revenue entries relating to land transferred by a 1985 will and subsequent sale deeds, arguing that the will did not constitute a prohibited transfer under Section 63 of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1948. The Collector, invoking Section 84C, cancelled the entries on th…

The petitioners sought to uphold revenue entries relating to land transferred by a 1985 will and subsequent sale deeds, arguing that the will did not constitute a prohibited transfer under Section 63 of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1948. The Collector, invoking Section 84C, cancelled the entries on th…

The petitioners sought to uphold revenue entries relating to land transferred by a 1985 will and subsequent sale deeds, arguing that the will did not constitute a prohibited transfer under Section 63 of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1948. The Collector, invoking Section 84C, cancelled the entries on th…

The petitioners sought to overturn the Collector’s order cancelling six revenue entries relating to land transferred by will and subsequent sale deeds, alleging that the will did not constitute a prohibited transfer under Section 63 of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1948. The Collector, acting suo motu,…

The petitioners sought to uphold revenue entries relating to land transferred by a 1985 will and subsequent sale deeds, arguing that the will did not constitute a prohibited transfer under Section 63 of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1948. The Collector, invoking Section 84C, cancelled the entries on th…

The heirs of the deceased landowner challenged the acquisition of a right of way for a water pipeline laid across their land under the Gujarat Water and Gas Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 2000. They alleged procedural violations, denial of a proper hearing, and sought restoration of the status qu…

The appellants, a group of eight students, challenged the cancellation of their admission to the First Year BHMS programme for the academic year 2022-2023 by the principal of Valan Homeopathic Medical College. They filed a civil application seeking interim relief to appear for examinations during the pendency of a writ…