1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred, with the following prayers :
"(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to admit and allow this Special Civil Application.
(B) This Honourable Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the order dated 24.11.2011 passed by the Secretary, Revenue Department (Vivad), State of Gujarat in Revision Application Number 6 of 2011 and the order dated 24.12.2010 passed by the Prant Officer, Deputy Collector, Viramgam Prant i.e. amendment order of Block Devision.
(C) Pending admission and final hearing the Honourable Court be pleased to stay the impugned communication dated 24.11.2011 passed by the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department (Vivad), State of Gujarat in Revision Application Number 6 of 2011 and the order dated 24.12.2010 passed by the Prant Officer, Deputy Collector, Viramgam Prant i.e. amendment order of Block Division.
(D) Pending admission and final hearing the Honourable Court be pleased to direct the Respondent Number 1 to 4 not to do any act with regard to transfer of land in any manner to any person and/or direct to maintain the status quo of the subject land.
(E) Any other reliefs as the nature and circumstances of the case may require may also be granted."
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the order dated 24.12.2010 has been passed by the Deputy Collector without issuance of notice or granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner has preferred a Revision Application against the said order, which is pending before the Special Secretary, Revenue Department (respondent No.8) who, by the impugned order dated 24.11.2011 has refused to grant interim relief to the petitioner.
3. Mr.Paresh M. Darji, learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the earlier order dated 24.03.2010 of the Deputy Collector has been modified by order dated 24.12.2010 of the same authority, to the detriment of the petitioner, without providing the petitioner an opportunity of hearing and without issuance of notice.
4. Mr.J.V.Vaghela, learned advocate for the Caveators (respondents Nos.1 to 4) submits that some time may be granted, in order to enable him to file an affidavit-in-reply.
5. The Registry may place the Caveat on the record of the petition.
List on 17.01.2012.
(Smt.
Abhilasha Kumari, J.) ~gaurav~ Top