This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed with the following prayers:
"(A) A writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction may kindly be issued quashing and setting aside the order dated 14.09.2011 passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, in injunction/ Stay application filed in Revision Application No.T.E.N./B.S./8/2011 and be pleased to grant the reliefs as prayed for in the stay application in revision application No.8 of 2011, by staying/ suspending the order dated 31.01.2011 passed by the Deputy Collector in Tenancy Appeal No.6 and 7 of 2007 and the order dated 15.02.2007 passed by the Mamlatdar in Ganot Case No.30 of 2006 (Adajan).
(B) Pending admission hearing and final disposal of the present petition this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to stay the operation implementation of the order dated 14.09.2011 passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, in injunction/ Stay application filed in Revision Application No.T.E.N./B.S./8/2011 and the order dated 31.01.2011 passed by the Deputy Collector in Tenancy Appeal No.6 and 7 of 2007 and the order dated 15.02.2007 passed by the Mamlatdar in Ganot Case No.30 of 2006 (Adajan).
(C) Any other reliefs grantable by this Hon'ble Court may kindly be granted in the interest of justice."
The grievance of the petitioners is that the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, by its impugned order dated 14.09.2011, has rejected the application for stay filed by the petitioners, pending the final decision of the Revision Application.
Heard Mr.Mukesh A.Patel, learned advocate for the petitioners and Mr.A.S.Vakil, learned advocate for respondent No.1 - Caveator.
It is submitted by Mr.Mukesh A.Patel, learned advocate for the petitioners that the interest of justice would be met, if the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal is directed to consider and decide Revision Application No.T.E.N./B.S./8/2011, within a stipulated period of time, considering that no stay has been granted by the Tribunal and the findings contained in the orders challenged by the petitioners before the Tribunal may be used to their detriment in other proceedings.
Mr.A.S.Vakil, learned advocate for respondent No.1 - Caveator has no objection if an order directing the Tribunal to hear the Revision Application within a stipulated period of time, is passed by this Court.
In view of the above submissions of the learned counsel for the respective parties, the following order is passed:-
The Gujarat Revenue Tribunal shall consider and decide Revision Application No.T.E.N./B.S./8/2011, filed by the petitioners, in accordance with law, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, without being influenced by the factum of filing of the present petition.
The petition is disposed of in the above terms without entering into the merits of the case.
(Smt.
Abhilasha Kumari, J.) (sunil) Top