This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been preferred with the following prayers:
"(a) admit and allow this writ petition;
(b) issue a writ of mandamus and/or any other writ, order or direction directing the respondents, more particularly, respondent No.4, i.e. Mamlatdar, Paddhari, to decide Applications dated 29.11.2010 and Application dated 12.03.2012 filed by the petitioner and further be pleased to direct Mamlatdar, Paddhari either to keep the `Juno Gada Marg' leading to S.No.15 paiki 5 open or to provide alternate way to the land of the petitioner;
(c) Pending hearing and final disposal of the present petition, direct the respondents to stay their hands and not to implement the Scheme for development of `new gamtal' so far as it results in closing of `Juno Gada marg';
(d) grant any other and further relief/s to the petitioner in the interest of justice."
The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he is using the road which is passing through Government Kharaba in order to commute to his field bearing Survey No.15/5 since several years. The said road is known as "Juno Gada Marg" and is the only way to go to Survey No.15/5 from the main road of the village. The petitioner came to know that the Kharaba land of the State Government, through which the said road is passing, is proposed to be used for establishing new Gamtal in such a manner that the existing road would be closed down and on the said land, construction would be carried out in a manner that would render Survey No.15/5 useless, unless it is accessible by road. The petitioner moved an application on 29.11.2010, before the Mamlatdar, Paddhari, requesting him to take appropriate steps to see that the road is not closed down, under Section 5 of the Mamlatdar's Courts Act, 1906. After some interse communication between the authorities and a Panchnama drawn on 04.01.2011, no further action appears to have been taken by the Mamlatdar. On 12.01.2011, the petitioner made a representation to the Collector with a copy to the Mamlatdar and Deputy Executive Collector, Rajkot, to take necessary steps. On 12.03.2012, a detailed application was made to the Mamlatdar by the petitioner, requesting him to consider the application of the petitioner and resolve the issue of the approach road. As both the applications made by the petitioner on 29.11.2010 and 12.03.2012, before the Mamlatdar have not been decided so far, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present petition.
On 03.04.2012, the learned Assistant Government Pleader had prayed for time in order to take instructions. Today, when the matter is taken up, Ms.Nisha M.Thakore, learned Assistant Government Pleader, has tendered a copy of the communication dated 12.04.2012, addressed by the Mamlatdar to the learned Government Pleader, stating that the applications of the petitioner, dated 29.11.2010 (wrongly mentioned in the communication dated 12.04.2012 as "29.11.2011") and 12.03.2012, shall be considered and decided after proper inquiry within a period of three months. A copy of this communication is taken on record.
Ms.Trusha K.Patel, learned advocate for the petitioner, submits that the Mamlatdar, Paddhari, may be directed to consider the application for grant of interim stay that shall be filed by the petitioner, as the applications pending before him may become infructuous, if the grant of stay is not considered.
Upon hearing the learned counsel for the respective parties, and in view of the communication dated 12.04.2012 of the Mamlatdar, Paddhari, the following order is passed:-
The petitioner is at liberty to move an application for grant of stay before the Mamlatdar, Paddhari, within a period of ten days from today. On receipt thereof, the Mamlatdar, Paddhari, shall consider and decide the applications dated 29.11.2010 and 12.03.2012, filed by the petitioner as well as the application for grant of stay. Appropriate orders, in accordance with law, shall be passed by the Mamlatdar within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the application for stay made by the petitioner.
The petition is disposed of in the above terms, without entering into the merits of the case.
(Smt.
Abhilasha Kumari, J.) (sunil) Top