1. Heard Mr. Rutvij M. Bhatt, learned advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Ronak B. Raval, learned AGP for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Mr. A.J. Patel, learned advocate with Mr. Jayesh Patel for respondent Nos.5 to 7.
2. By way of this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has inter-alia challenged the order dated 16.6.2011 passed by the Collector, Valsad. As there is an alternative remedy by filing a further revision before the Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals), Mr. Rutvij M. Bhatt, learned advocate for the petitioner does not press this petition at this stage with liberty to approach the revisional authority and file a substantive revision against the order impugned in the present petition.
3. In view of the aforesaid statement made by the learned advocate for the petitioner, the present petition is disposed of as not pressed. However, it is made clear that this Court has not examined the matter on merits and it would be open for the petitioner to raise all contentions available before the revisional authority and the said authority shall consider the proceedings without being influenced by the fact that the present petition is not pressed.
4. It is also further observed that by way of this petition which is filed by the present petitioner on 6.8.2011, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 16.6.2011 passed by the Collector, Valsad and considering the fact that the petition has remained pending before this Court since 6.8.2011 till date, the said fact shall be considered by the revisional authority while considering the aspect of delay in preferring the revision by the present petitioner as the petitioner has approached this Court and was pursuing his remedy under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
5. The petitioner has also filed Civil Application No.2347 of 2012 seeking certain interim reliefs. Similarly, another application is filed being Civil Application No.10175 of 2011, whereby the petitioner has declared before this Court that the private respondent Nos.5 to 7 have disposed of the property to one Dr. Shambhubhai Chandubhai Bhadra during pendency of these proceedings which is not disputed by Mr. Jayesh Patel, learned advocate for respondent Nos.5 to 7. In addition to this, the petitioner has also prayed to join Dr. Shambhubhai Chandubhai Bhadra as respondent No.8 and Sub-Registrar, Valsad as party respondent No.9 in the main petition. However, as the main petition is disposed of today, these Civil Applications are not considered on merits and it would be open for the petitioner to file such applications also before the revisional authority and the authority is directed to consider the same independently on its own merits without influenced by the fact that the main petition is not pressed. If the revision is preferred and stay application is filed, such stay application shall be disposed of by the revisional authority by giving utmost priority after giving an opportunity of being heard to all the parties concerned within four weeks from the date of filing of the same.
6. With these observations, the petition as well as the Civil Applications are disposed of with no order as to costs.
[R.M.CHHAYA, J.] mrpandya Top