Heard Mr. H.D.Dave, learned advocate, for the petitioners.
Learned advocate for the petitioners submit that a specific contention was raised before the revisional authority about jurisdiction of Mamlatdar under Section 5 of Mamlatdar Court Act and it is pertaining to agricultural land and dispute arising there to and not otherwise, no finding or explanation is rendered and in addition to above, the very revision application which was heard earlier on 8.12.2010, the predecessor, Dy. Collector/revisional authority had directed DILR to submit a report after visit of the disputed site but inspite of the application preferred by the petitioner to carry out the above order and willingness of the petitioner to join for survey, no action is taken in this regard and, therefore, the order impugned deserves to be quashed and set aside.
Considering the above, prima facie, the matter deserves consideration. Hence, Rule.
Ad-interim relief in terms of para 28 (c) is granted. Notice as to interim relief returnable on 12.9.2012.
[ANANT S. DAVE, J.] //smita// HC-NIC Page 2 of 2 Created On Sat Jan 09 02:04:51 IST 2016