1. This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been preferred, with the following prayers:
"Your Lordships be pleased to issue a writ of or in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction:-
(a) to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 19-2-2011 passed by the Special Secretary, Revenue Department, Ahmedabad rejecting the interim stay application of the petitioner filed in the Revision Application No.2/2010; by holding the same as bad in law and illegal and thereby be pleased to grant the prayers of the petitioner as made in the Civil Application for Interim Stay;
(b) Pending the hearing and final disposal of this writ petition, be pleased to stay the operation, implementation and execution of the order dated 19-2-2011 passed by the Special Secretary, Revenue Department, Ahmedabad rejecting the interim stay application of the petitioner filed in Revision application No.2/2010 as al;so the orders dated 6.8.2008 passed by the Deputy Collector, Junagadh in RRT Appeal No.50 of 2007 and order dated 29.9.2009 passed by the Collector, Junagadh I RRT Revision No.71 of 2009;
(c) To grant any other appropriate and just relief/s;"
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that by impugned order dated 19.02.2011 passed by the Special Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department (respondent No.1), the application for grant of interim stay preferred by the petitioner in Revision Application No.2 of 2010, has been rejected.
3. The brief factual background of the case is that the petitioner purchased land bearing Survey No.43, paiki 1 situated at Village: Paladi, Tal: Una admeasuring 80 Are and 94 sq. meters from the father of respondents Nos.6 and 7 by way of registered Sale Deed dated 06.06.1990 for a sale consideration of Rs.10,000/-. Entry No.1445 was mutated in the revenue record in favour of the petitioner. Thereafter, respondents nos.6 and 7 preferred an appeal before the Deputy Collector being RTS Appeal No.50 of 2007 under Rule 108(5) of the Gujarat Land Revenue Rules, 1972. A Civil Suit also came to be instituted by respondents Nos.6 and 7 challenging the sale executed between the petitioner and the father of the said respondents. The appeal filed by respondents Nos.6 and 7 came to be allowed by order dated 06.08.2008, of the Deputy Collector, and order of the Mamlatdar (respondent No.4) certifying Entry No.1445 came to be cancelled. Further, Entry No.876 was directed to be taken into revision. The petitioner filed a Revision Application before the Collector (respondent No.2) which was rejected by order dated 29.09.2009. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the petitioner preferred Revision Application No.2 of 2010 before respondent No.1-Special Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, along with an application for stay of the impugned orders. The said application has been rejected by the impugned order dated 19.02.2011, giving rise to the filing of the petition.
4. At the outset, Mr.Jal Soli Unwala, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the interest of justice would be met, if respondent No.1 is directed to consider and decide the Revision Application filed by the petitioner, within a stipulated period of time, and the ad-interim order passed by this Court on 06.05.2011, may be continued till the final decision of the Revision Application.
5. Mr.
Pranav S. Dave, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondents Nos.1 to 4, submits that a reasonable period of time may be granted to respondent No.1 to decide the Revision Application.
6. Mr.Tushar L. Sheth, learned advocate for respondents Nos.6 and 7, submits that he has no objection to the Revision Application being decided at an early date.
7. In view of the statement made by the learned counsel for the respective parties, the following order is passed:
The Special Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department (respondent No.1) is directed to consider and decide the Revision Application No.2 of 2010 preferred by the petitioner, within a period of 6 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till such time as to Revision Application is decided, the ad-interim relief granted by this Court vide order dated 06.05.2011, shall remain in operation.
It transpires from a perusal of the impugned order that the findings recorded therein are such as would almost amount to finally deciding the Revision Application. Without making any further observations in this regard, respondent No.1 is directed to ensure that the final outcome of the Revision Application shall not be influenced by passing of the impugned order.
8. The petition is disposed of, with the above directions, without entering into the merits of the case.
(Smt. Abhilasha Kumari, J.) rakesh/ Top