Gujarat High Court
Aye Shri Khodiyar Harijan Group vs State Of Guarat Thro.Revenue ... on 19 March, 2018
Author: Sonia Gokani
Bench: Sonia Gokani
C/SCA/8397/2013 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8397 of 2013
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI
==========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to
see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the
judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law
as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any
order made thereunder ?
==========================================================
AYE SHRI KHODIYAR HARIJAN GROUP
Versus
STATE OF GUARAT THRO.REVENUE SECRETARY(APPEAL)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. KSHITIJ P VAKIL(7197) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1
MR HARDIK SONI, GOVERNMENT PLEADER(1) for the RESPONDENT(s)
No. 1,2,3
MR. NIRAV D TRIVEDI(6311) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 4
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI
Date : 19/03/2018
ORAL JUDGMENT
1.0 The petitioner is a Cooperative Society, registered under the provisions of the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act, 1961, bearing registration No. DP/A/2173/1982. Its members are consisting of Scheduled Castes in relation to the the State of Gujarat and they all belong to village Manund, where, the seat of the Society is constituted.
Page 1 of 24C/SCA/8397/2013 JUDGMENT 1.1 As averred in this petition, it is the
case of the petitioner that this Court vide its judgment and order dated 28.10.1991, dismissed the Special Civil Application No. 2872 of 1986, filed by the Manund Gram Panchayat against the State of Gujarat, District Collector, Mehsana, in respect of the very land, which is the subject matter of the present petition. The Court also had directed, while so granting the land to the petitioner-Society directed to handover the same to it without any further loss of time.
1.2 An appeal being Letters Patent Appeal No. 358 of 1991, challenging the aforesaid judgment and order dated 28.10.1991 was preferred, where, the Division Bench of this Court confirmed the judgment and order dated 28.10.1991. This was when challenged before the Apex Court, it was further confirmed vide judgment and order dated 10.02.1992, dismissing the Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 5373 of 1992.
1.3 It is the grievance on the part of the petitioner that despite the specific directions issued in the judgment and order of this Court dated 28.10.1991 and confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in LPA so also by the Apex Page 2 of 24 C/SCA/8397/2013 JUDGMENT Court in SLP, Respondent No.1-State chose not to grant the land to the petitioner-Society and on the contrary, a notification came to be issued by it dated 15.07.1992, inviting applications from the public for grant of the said land. Therefore, the present petitioner-Society approached this Court by way of Special Civil Application No. 5116 of 1992.
1.4 The petitioner Society, then, approached this Court by way of contempt petition bearing MCA No. 965 of 1992 in Special Civil Application No. 2872 of 1986 for the State Government not having complied with the order of this Court.
1.5 In that matter, District Collector, Mehsana, remained personally present before this Court and a statement was made at Bar that after following the legal procedure, the said land shall be allocated to the petitioner-Society. The contempt petition being MCA No. 965 of 2012, therefore, was permitted to be withdrawn.
1.6 It is, thus, the case of the petitioner- Society that after such a long drawn legal battle, the land belonging to the State Government, bearing Survey No. 683, admeasuring 60 acres 0 gunthas was allotted to the petitioner-Society and the physical possession to Page 3 of 24 C/SCA/8397/2013 JUDGMENT it was handed over by the State and the necessary revenue entries were also made in the revenue record.
1.7 It is the grievance of the petitioner- Society that the Dy. Collector, Patan, on 15.07.1998, entered the said land in the name of the government on the ground that there was alleged breach of condition Nos. 1 and 4 of the original allotment dated 07.08.1992. The petitioner-society challenged the said order dated 15.07.1998 of the Dy. Collector, Patan, before the Special Secretary (Appeals) ('SSRD' in brief) under the provisions of the Bombay Land Revenue Code and had chosen not to go before the District Collector, since, the land was allotted to the petitioner by way of compliance of the judgment and order of this Court. The Revisional Authority, however, directed the petitioner- Society to approach the District Collector, Mehsana.
1.8 Against the impugned order of SSRD, relagating the petitioner to the District Collector, Special Civil Application No. 6813 of 1998 came to be preferred, where, this Court passed an oral order on 25.08.1998.
1.9 The learned Single Judge Bench of this
Page 4 of 24
C/SCA/8397/2013 JUDGMENT
Court directed the petitioner to prefer an appeal under Section 203 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code('the Code', in brief). The Court also stayed the operation, implementation and execution of the order dated 15.07.1998 passed by the Deputy Collector, Patan, until the appeal is decided by this District Collector. After availing the opportunity to the petitioner-Society, the appeal shall have to be decided by the District Collector, as per the said directions.
1.10 Pursuant to such directions, an appeal came to be filed by the petitioner-Society before the District Collector, Mehsana. Later on, the proceedings were transferred to the District Collector, Patan, on creation of a new separate district of Patan.
1.11 District Collector, Patan, availed an opportunity of hearing to the parties and passed an order on 10.06.2011, whereby, he dismissed the appeal. This has aggrieved the petitioner- Society, which according to it is a non-speaking order, without giving any cogent reason. This is termed as 'Colourable Exercise of Powers' and an attempt to nullify the effect of the judgment and order passed by this Court.
1.12 A revision application, therefore,
Page 5 of 24
C/SCA/8397/2013 JUDGMENT
preferred by the petitioner-Society, against the order of the District Collector, Patan, and the Revisional Authority held in favour of the petitioner Society to a large extent by observing on many aspects on merits and remanded the matter to the Dy. Collector, Patan. The Revisional Authority also had set side the order of the Dy. Collector, Patan, as well as the order of the District Collector, Patan. However, against the said order of remand, the petitioner-Society approached this Court by way of Special Civil Application No. 11333 of 2012, which was disposed of by this Court vide judgment and order dated 27.08.2012.
1.13 The Dy. Collector in an order of remand, conducted the Sharatbhang/Remand/ Case No. 2 of 2012 and re-confirmed his earlier order date 15.07.1998.
1.14 The petitioner against the said order approached District Collector, Patan, by way of preferring an appeal under Section 203 of the Code, praying for the stay against the order of the Dy. Collector dated 24.12.2012. District Collector, Patan, vide his order dated 26.03.2013, which is impugned, herein, dismissed the appeal. Against which the petitioner-Society approached the SSRD and the Revisional Authority Page 6 of 24 C/SCA/8397/2013 JUDGMENT granted the stay against the said order of the Dy. Collector dated 24.12.2012.
1.15 It is the grievance of the petitioner- Society that the petitioner-Society since has enjoyed the possession of the land after the judgment and order of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 2872 of 1986 delivered on 28.10.1991, which also came to be confirmed by the Apex Court and the impugned order of the Dy. Collector, Dated: 15.07.1998 had been quashed and set aside by the Revisional Authority on 01.05.2012. Moreover, the Executive Officer cannot exercise the powers contrary to the judgments rendered by this Court and if, any such order is passed, it is a nullity. On merits, it is being argued that the agricultural activities are being carried on by the petitioner-Society and the extract of Village Form No. 7/12 also further confirms this aspect.
1.16 Hence, the present petition with the following prayers:
"7. ...
a) Your Lordships may be pleased to admit & allow the present petition with costs: &
b) Your Lordships may be pleased to quash & set aside the impugned order Page 7 of 24 C/SCA/8397/2013 JUDGMENT dated 24/12/2012 passed by the Deputy Collector in Sharatbhang/Remand/Case No. 2/2012;&
c) Your Lordships may be pleased to an appropriate writ and / or order/direction restraining the Respondents from taking any action whatsoever that would amount to interfering with and/or causing disturbance in enjoyment of the land by the Petitioner-Society of land bearing Survey No. 683, admeasuring A.62, 0 G..
d) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of the Petitioner, Your Lordships may be pleased to extend the stay on the Deputy Collector's impugned order dated 24/12/2012, from its execution, implementation & operation that was granted by the Special Revenue Secretary (Appeal); & Any other relief that may be deemed to be fit in the interest of justice may be granted."
2.0 Affidavit-in-reply for an on behalf of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 is filed by the Dy. Collector, Mr. Dhanjibhai Chhogaram Joshi, stating inter alia that the petitioner has challenged the order dated 24.12.2012, passed by Respondent No.3, Dy. Collector, directly before this Court, though, there is an alternative, efficacious remedy is available. He is required to approach Respondent No.2-Collector by preferring an appeal, however, he has filed a Page 8 of 24 C/SCA/8397/2013 JUDGMENT writ-petition before this Court. On this count only, the same should be rejected. Moreover, the petitioner had preferred an interim application against the said order before the SSRD and he was asked to approach Respondent No.2-Collector. He preferred the application for interim stay before the Collector, which was rejected by him on 26.03.2013. The very order was challenged before the SSRD, who exercised the powers under Rule 108 of the Bombay Land Revenue Rules and granted protection up to 08.05.2013 for challenging the order dated 24.12.2012. It is therefore the say of the respondents that no appeal is preferred before the Respondent NO.2-Collector nor any revision application has been filed before the SSRD and the petitioner has straightaway approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which is not maintainable. It is emphasized that this is nothing but a short-cut adopted by the petitioner.
2.1 On merits, it is urged that the petitioner was allotted the land bearing Survey No. 683, admeasuring 62 acres 0 gunthas at village Manund, Taluka & District Patan. This was for the agricultural purpose that in the year 1992 as a new tenure, indivisible land, the same was granted to the petitioner. However, since, the land was kept fallow and as other members of Page 9 of 24 C/SCA/8397/2013 JUDGMENT the society were also not granted the benefit of cultivating the same, according to the Mamlatdar, there was breach of condition Nos. 1 and 4 of the original allotment order. Therefore, the Dy. Collector-Respondent No.3 vide his order dated 15.07.1998, directed the said land to be vested in the State Government on the account of the breach of the aforesaid conditions. The Collector Also vide his order dated 10.06.2011 upheld the order of the Dy. Collector, which was set aside by the SSRD on 30.04.2012, while remanding the matter to Respondent No.3-Dy. Collector. However, again by virtue of the order dated 24.12.2012, Dy. Collector reiterated his earlier order, vesting the said land into State Government.
2.2 It is the stand of the Respondents that due to disputes amongst the members of the Society, the land is not being cultivated. It was allotted to the members of the Scheduled Castes for their upliftment and the very purpose is frustrated. The Chairman of the Society admitted that some other persons were cultivating the land for the petitioner-Society and they had made a request for placing the land under mortgage, which was objected to by other members. Again none of the members obtained the benefit of cultivating the said land. Thus, this is a clear Page 10 of 24 C/SCA/8397/2013 JUDGMENT case of breach of condition Nos. 1 and 4 of the original allotment order. Respondent No.3-Dy. Collector vide his order dated 24.12.2012 reconfirmed his earlier order dated 15.07.1998, while so doing, he had taken into consideration various pros and cons and had passed such an order.
2.3 According to the respondents, the Revenue Record, particularly, Village Form No. 7/12, makes it very clear that the land had been kept fallow most of the times and many a times, half of the land had been kept uncultivated. Paragraph 4.5 of the affidavit-in-reply gives the complete details of the cultivated land and the fallow land. It emerges from the record that from 1994-95 to 1999-2000, 25 acres of the land had remained uncultivated, whereas, from the year 2000-2001 and 2009-2010, a larger portion of the land had remained cultivated, whereas, substantial portion had remained fallow.
TOTAL LAND: Hec. Are. 25-09-06
Sr. Year Land Land Padtar /
No. Cultivated Fallow
1 1994-95 00-00-00 25-9-06
2 1995-96 00-00-00 25-9-06
3 1996-97 00-00-00 25-9-06
4 1997-98 00-00-00 25-9-06
Page 11 of 24
C/SCA/8397/2013 JUDGMENT
5 1998-99 00-00-00 25-9-06
6 1999-00 00-00-00 25-9-06
7 2000-01 15-22-00 12-73-85
8 2001-02 16-45--00 11-50-85
9 2002-03 16-00-00 11-95-85
10 2003-04 16-00-00 11-95-85
11 2004-05 16-00-00 11-95-85
12 2007-08 16-00-00 11-95-85
13 2008-09 19-45-00 08-50-85
14 2009-10 08-50-85 11-95-85
The petitioner Society, as is emerging from the aforesaid tabular form, started cultivating some portion of the land in the year 2000-01 and prior to that no cultivation was carried out, and hence, the order is just and proper and does not deserve interference.
3.0 Affidavit-in-rejoinder for and on behalf of the petitioner-Society states that the petitioner is the Chairman of the Society. It has attempted to justify, when SSRD had quashed and set aside the earlier order passed by the Dy. Collector and the one, which was confirmed by the Collector no purpose would be sub-served going back to the very channel.
Relying on the decision of this Court in 'STATE OF GUJARAT VERSUS GORDHANBHAI BECHARBHAI PATEL AND OTHERS', 1995 2 GLH 97, it has been Page 12 of 24 C/SCA/8397/2013 JUDGMENT urged that the functionaries under the Act have to abide by the orders passed by the appellate authority and if not authority takes steps on the basis of the order, which is specifically set aside, those step deserves to be reversed and the reversion must be followed so as to take the order of the appellate authority to its logical conclusion. It is, further, urged that, since, Respondent No.3- Dy. Collector re-confirmed his earlier order of 15.07.1998, SSRD, if, is approached against the said order, it would be deciding on the legality of its own order, which is impermissible. Moreover, on 30.03.2013, the SSRD had granted interim protection to the present petitioner against the said order, and thereby, he has exercised powers under Rule 108 of the Bombay Land Revenue Rules. This order dated 30.03.2013, is in exercise of the power Under Section 211 of the Code.
3.1 It is after the long-drawn legal battle that the allotment of the land is made, and therefore, to snatch away the land would be undesirable. He refuted the allegations that the petitioner Society has not granted the benefit of cultivation to the other members. Moreover, according to the petitioner, for some years, the land had been fallow, then also, the decision of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 12237 Page 13 of 24 C/SCA/8397/2013 JUDGMENT of 2015 deserves to be regarded which has held and observed that, if, the agricultural activities are not carried out and that too unintentionally, the same may not be construed as breach of the condition.
4. This Court, thus, has heard, at length, the submissions of both the sides. According to the petitioner, alternative remedy is available, but, it is ineffective. It is also not desirable to go back to the very authority, since, the very same result can be expected. The SSRD, once, having set aside the order of the Dy. Collector, that very authority has reconfirmed its earlier order of 15.07.1998. He urged that after much litigation, the land has been allotted to the Society and now, with these orders, the judgment and order as well as the directions issued by this Court are sought to be nullified.
5. Learned AGP has strongly objected to the same on the ground that, since, the alternative, efficacious remedy is available, writ-petition would not lie. It is a case of remand, and therefore, the authority which had been remanded can always take the very view that cannot provide the ground for this Court to interfere in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India directly preferred before this Court.
Page 14 of 24C/SCA/8397/2013 JUDGMENT 6. On having, thus, heard the learned Advocates on both the sides and on having
considered the material on record, the law on the subject is quite clear that ordinarily with there is an alternative, efficacious remedy available with the parties, ordinarily, writ-petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India is not desirable. This Court has got wide powers to do the complete justice and set right any illegality or injustice. At the same time, it is the alternative, efficacious remedy, which shall be construed by the Court that the parties approaching under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
6.1 The Apex Court in case of 'COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. CHHABIL DASS AGARWAL', reported in (2014) 1 SCC 603, has held and observed that the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not absolute, but, has to be exercised judiciously. It has been held, therein, that:
15. Before discussing the fact proposition, we would notice the principle of law as laid down by this Court. It is settled law that non-entertainment of petitions under writ jurisdiction by the High Court when an efficacious alternative remedy is available is a rule of Page 15 of 24 C/SCA/8397/2013 JUDGMENT self-imposed limitation. It is essentially a rule of policy, convenience and discretion rather than a rule of law. Undoubtedly, it is within the discretion of the High Court to grant relief under Article 226 despite the existence of an alternative remedy. However, the High Court must not interfere if there is an adequate efficacious alternative remedy available to the petitioner and he has approached the High Court without availing the same unless he has made out an exceptional case warranting such interference or there exist sufficient grounds to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226.
XXX XXX XXX
19. Thus, while it can be said that this Court has recognized some exceptions to the rule of alternative remedy, i.e., where the statutory authority has not acted in accordance with the provisions of the enactment in question, or in defiance of the fundamental principles of judicial procedure, or has resorted to invoke the provisions which are repealed, or when an order has been passed in total violation of the principles of natural justice, the proposition laid down in Thansingh Nathmal case, Titagarh Paper Mills case and other similar judgments that the High Court will not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved person or the statute under which the action complained of Page 16 of 24 C/SCA/8397/2013 JUDGMENT has been taken itself contains a mechanism for redressal of grievance still holds the field. Therefore, when a statutory forum is created by law for redressal of grievances, a writ petition should not be entertained ignoring the statutory dispensation."
6.2 Before deciding that issue, it will be apt to re-visit the factual matrix, where, this Court is quite conscious of the fact that the petitioner-Society had to put-up a long drawn legal battle before it could get the land allotted, which is in dispute in the present petition. This Court, as mentioned herein above, was approached by way of Special Civil Application No. 2872 of 1986, filed by the Manund Gram Panchayat, where the Court had directed the State Government to take immediate action to grant the land to the petitioner-society and to hand over the same without further delay of time.
6.3 This was when challenged by way of Letters Patent Appeal No. 358 of 1991, the appellate Bench had confirmed the said order vide order dated 28.10.1991 and thereby, the LPA preferred by the State was dismissed.
6.4 When the challenge was taken further up before the Apex Court by the State, it, also, confirmed the judgment and order of dated Page 17 of 24 C/SCA/8397/2013 JUDGMENT 28.04.1992 and dismissed the SLP (Civil) No. 5373 of 1992. Undoubtedly, the petitioner-Society has been in a position to obtain the land after a very long legal battle. This Court is also conscious of the fact that this was for the benefit of the strata of the Society, which needed the support in earning their subsistence.
Therefore, the Society had been allotted the land with certain terms and conditions. The society's name also had been entered in the Village Form No. 7/12. However, for violation of Condition Nos. 1 and 4 of the original allotment dated 07.08.1992, the entire dispute had arisen. Deputy Collector, Patan, vide his order dated 15.07.1998 entered the said land in the name of the government, on the ground that there is violation of Condition Nos. 1 and 4 of the original allotment.
6.5 The first condition was that this was to be kept intact without any fragmentation and the land to be cultivated by the Society, itself, without seeking any permission for tenant to carry out the agricultural conditions.
6.6 Condition No.4 was to make land cultivable within a period of two years from the date of their entry in the land and if for any valid reason, the same is kept fallow, the Page 18 of 24 C/SCA/8397/2013 JUDGMENT government can always confiscate the said land. These two conditions had led the Deputy Collector, Patan, to pass order on 15.07.1998, which, of course, was confirmed by the Collector and when the matter travelled to the SSRD under the provisions of the Code, it remanded the matter and directed the petitioner to file revision application before the District Collector. Since, the alternative, efficacious remedy under Section 203 of the Code was available, when challenge was made to the said order of the SSRD, this Court in Special Civil Application No. 6813 of 1998, directed the parties to take recourse to the alternative remedy. This Court, further, had granted the stay of the operation, implementation and execution of the order dated 15.07.1998, until the appeal was decided by the District Collector. The District Collector, however, while deciding the appeal on merit, upheld the order of the Deputy Collector and thereby, dismissed the same on 10.06.2011. Against the said order, revision was filed by the petitioner-Society and after hearing the parties, the Revisional authority, while holding in favour of the present-petitioner on merits, remanded the matter to the Deputy Collector and thereby, set aside the earlier order of the Deputy Collector.
6.7 On 27.08.2012, once again, the
Page 19 of 24
C/SCA/8397/2013 JUDGMENT
petitioner approached this Court by way of
Special Civil Application No. 11333 of 2012,
which was disposed of by this Court on
27.08.2012. While disposing of the said petition, this Court directed, thus:
"4. In view of the above and considering the fact that the members of the petitioner society are waiting for the benefits of the grant since 1992, the Deputy Collector, Patan is directed to hear all the parties and decide the proceedings which are so remanded by the Additional Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals) vide order dated 30.4.2012/1.5.2012 passed in Revision Application No.MVV/JMN/Patan/25/11 as expeditiously as possible, but not later than 31.12.2012. It is, however, made clear that this Court has not examined the matter on merits and the Deputy Collector, Patan shall decide the same strictly in accordance with law after hearing the parties as observed herein above."
6.8 Dy. Collector vide his order dated 24.12.2012, reconfirmed his earlier order dated 15.07.1998 and that had aggrieved the petitioner- Society and therefore, it has preferred the present petition.
6.9 This Court notices that against the order of the Dy. Collector, it had approached the Page 20 of 24 C/SCA/8397/2013 JUDGMENT Collector, who confirmed the order of the Dy. Collector. Against which, the petitioner-Society approached the SSRD. However, according to the petitioner, it is only for getting the stay against the order of the Dy. Collector dated 24.12.2012, which was confirmed by the Collector, to enable itself to approach this Court, the petitioner had approached the SSRD. It did get an order in its favour from the SSRD and yet, it chose to approach this Court instead of getting the matter decided on merits from the SSRD.
6.10 This Court notices that till the petitioner approached this Court, the SSRD had stayed the order of the Dy. Collector, Patan, Dated: 24.12.2012. The petitioner, instead of taking a recourse to challenge the order of the Collector, Patan, before the SSRD, has directly approached this Court. This Court notices that, at no stage, the SSRD decided the matter on merits. On the first time, it had remanded the matter to the Dy. Collector and on the second time, it granted stay against the operation, execution and implementation of the order of the Dy. Collector.
6.11 In this regard, heavy reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in in Special Civil Application No. 12237 of 2015, wherein, it is Page 21 of 24 C/SCA/8397/2013 JUDGMENT urged that in somewhat similar situation, this Court had entertained the petition and had decided in favour of the petitioner by restoring the original grant. The facts in that case are somewhat different, where, after the SSRD's order, the petitioner has approached this Court, after the SSRD has not entertained the plea of the petitioner, therein. Moreover, for three years, when the land remained uncultivated, there was a clear reason of drought, preventing the petitioner from cultivating the land. However, without entering into the merits of the matter, when the petitioner has chosen to come directly before this Court without approaching the SSRD, this petition on that count only is not being entertained. More particularly, when there are disputed questions of facts raised by the petitioner. This Court notices that for a couple of year, as mentioned in Paragraph-4.5 of the affidavit-in-reply, the land had remained uncultivated or fallow, which is severely disputed by the petitioner. According to it, the total area of the land granted had been cultivated and the revenue records, reflect those details fairly. Contrary to that Dy. Collector and the Collector both have decided the matter.
7. While not entertaining this petition, on the ground of the alternative, efficacious remedy Page 22 of 24 C/SCA/8397/2013 JUDGMENT of the SSRD being available, which, the petition- Society had approached for the purpose of getting the stay against the order of the Dy. Collector dated 24.12.2012, let the matter be decided on merit by the SSRD, on the petitioner approaching it. Once it is done, the SSRD shall decide the same without remanding the matter to the Collector or Dy. Collector. If, need be so, it may call for the report from the concerned authority. While passing an order, it shall also bear in mind the objectives of the grant of the land to the Society. The total number of the members of the Society shall be taken into account and if need be so, the entire details of each of the members shall be placed on record, since, a single person cannot be allowed to take the benefits of this grant nor his lethargic or negligent attitude be allowed to affect rest of the members of the Society for whose benefit, the grant has been made of the land.
7.1 This shall be decided by the SSRD within a period of four months from the date of its reference before the SSRD.
7.2 Let the petitioner-Society approach the SSRD within a period of TWO WEEKS from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In the event of any difficulty, the petitioner shall be at Page 23 of 24 C/SCA/8397/2013 JUDGMENT liberty to approach this Court. This Court has not decided the matter on merits. The authority concerned, i.e. the SSRD, shall decide the same bearing in mind the chronological details and the observations made in this order. The order of the Dy. Collector and the Collector, Patan, shall remain stayed, till the SSRD finalizes the revision. DISPOSED OF, accordingly.
(SONIA GOKANI, J) UMESH /-
Page 24 of 24