(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. M.
SAHAI)
1. We have heard learned advocate Mr.P.B.Khamborja appearing on behalf of learned advocate Mr.N.K.Majmudar for the appellant and learned AGP Ms.Jirga Jhaveri for the respondent-State.
2. The appellant's revision application is pending before the Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, State of Gujarat and the interim relief application has been rejected which was challenged by the appellant before this Court in Special Civil Application No.1354 of 2011 which has been dismissed on 25.2.2011 by the learned Single Judge by passing the following order.
"1. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is against the interlocutory order dated 7.12.2010/ 10.12.2010 passed by Revisional Authority - Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, State of Gujarat in Revision Application No110/2010, by which, Revisional Authority has refused to stay the order dated 26.7.2010 passed by the Collector, Bharuch, by which, mutation entry in favour of the petitioner is ordered to be set aside and the order with respect to cancellation of mutation entry in favour of private respondent, has been confirmed.
2. Considering the fact that the dispute is with respect to mutation entry and the petitioner as well as private respondent are claiming title and ownership by way of two different sale deeds and Civil Suit is pending between the parties, the present petition is not entertained more particularly on the ground that as per settled proposition of law, mutation entry in the revenue record does not confer any right, title and interest in favour of the persons, whose names are entered in the revenue record and the parties have to govern by outcome of the Civil Suit. In view of the above, the present petition is not entertained and the same deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. As and when the aforesaid Revision Application is heard by learned Revisional Authority, the same may be decided and disposed of, in accordance with law and on merits and without in any way being influenced by the interlocutory order."
3. Having heard learned advocate for the appellant, we do not find any illegality in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. This appeal is devoid of any merits and is accordingly dismissed.
4. In view of dismissal of main appeal, Civil Application No.112 of 2012 does not survive and accordingly it is dismissed.
(V.M.
SAHAI, J.) (A.J.DESAI, J.) syed/ Top