Heard Mr.R.S.Sanjanwala, learned Senior Advocate with Mr.Digant M. Popat, learned advocate for the petitioners. It is submitted by him that in spite of the concurrent findings of two authorities to the effect that respondent No.2 was an employee and not a tenant, an ex-parte interim order was issued by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, directing status-quo to be maintained, qua the land in question. It is further submitted that on the petitioners came to know of the said order, an application for vacation of interim relief was filed.
Without considering the status of respondent No.2 and the aspect that he has been found to be an employee and not a tenant by two authorities below, the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal has not only rejected the application for vacation of interim relief, but has also restrained the petitioners from alienating the land in question in any manner, thereby enlarging the scope of the proceedings. The learned Senior Advocate has relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court dated 22.04.2012, passed in Civil Appeals Nos.4012/2012 and 4013/2012, in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.14163/2012 and 14164/2012, wherein it has been held that a watchman, caretaker or a servant employed to look after the property can never acquire interest in the property, irrespective of his long possession.
Issue Notice returnable on 05.07.2012.
The implementation, execution and operation of the impugned order dated 05.01.2012 passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, shall remain stayed till then.
In addition to the normal mode of service, Direct Service is also permitted.
(Smt.
Abhilasha Kumari, J.) Gaurav+ Top