RAMESHBHAI LALBHAI PATEL - Petitioner(s) Versus BALAVANTBHAI HIRABHAI PATEL & 3 - Respondent(s) ===================================================== Appearance :
MS AMEE YAJNIK for Petitioner(s) : 1, MR RD DAVE for Respondent(s) : 1, NOTICE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 2, MR JIGNESH KAPADIA for Respondent(s) : 3, MS ASMITA PATEL, AGP for Respondent(s) : 4, ===================================================== CORAM :
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA Date : 26/06/2012 ORAL (COMMON) ORDER (1) As the issue involved in the present group of petitions is similar and in all petitions a common order passed by respondent No.4-Secretary, Revenue Department (Disputes), Ahmedabad dated 16/21.07.2011 is challenged whereby the applications filed by the petitioner for grant of interim relief are rejected.
(2) This Court vide order dated 09.03.2012 passed the following order:
" Heard Ms.Amee Yajnik, learned advocate for the petitioners. It is submitted by her that the petitioner has purchased the land in question by way of eight registered Sale Deeds on 30.03.2007 and 29.05.2007. On the basis of the said Sale Deeds, mutation entries ought to have been recorded in the revenue records in favour of the petitioners, however, due to pendency of Civil Suits inter-se between respondents Nos.1 to 3, the Revenue Authorities are not mutating the said entries. It is submitted that the impugned order passed by the Special Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, is contrary to the principles of law laid down in the judgments of this Court in Popat Khima Ramani (DECD.) through his legal heirs Vs. Collector, Rajkot and others reported in 2002(3) GLR 2256 and Jhaverbhai Savjibhai Patel through P.O.A. Holder Ashok J. Patel Vs. Kanchaben Nathubhai Patel and others reported in 2005(3) GLR 2233.
Issue Notice, in each petition, returnable on 02.04.2012."
(3) Ms.Amee Yajnik, learned advocate for the petitioner, Mr.R.D.Dave, learned advocate appearing for respondent No.1, and Mr.Jignesh Kapadia, learned advocate appearing for respondent No.3, jointly submitted that instead of examining the matters on merits, interest of justice would be served if the main Revision Application No.MVV/HKP/Amd-36-to-43/11, pending before respondent No.4 be heard as expeditiously as possible. The request made by the learned counsel for the respective parties is reasonable and, therefore, the same deserves to be accepted in principle.
(4) The petitioner shall file appropriate applications for fixing the main Revision Application No.MVV/HKP/Amd-36-to-43/11 before respondent No.4 for early final hearing within a period of 15 days from today. Mr.R.D.Dave, learned advocate appearing for respondent No.1, and Mr.Jignesh Kapadia, learned advocate appearing for respondent No.3, have expressed that they have no objection if the aforesaid revision applications are so fixed. Accordingly, respondent No.4 is directed to decide such applications that may be filed by the petitioner, and fixed the main Revision Applications No.MVV/HKP/Amd-36-to-43/11 as expeditiously as possible.
(5) With these observations the petitions stand disposed of. NOTICE discharged.
(6) It is however made clear that this Court has not examined the matters on merits and the aforesaid directions are issued at the request made by the learned counsel for the respective parties.
(7) Registry to place a copy of this order in connected matters.
Sd/-
[R.M.CHHAYA, J ] *** Bhavesh* Top