Gujarat High Court
Mohmmadhanif Abdulkadar vs Musamiya Imam Hyder Bax Razvi - ... on 9 March, 2007
CRA/31/2007 1/3 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION No. 31 of 2007
=========================================================
MOHMMADHANIF ABDULKADAR,S/O ABDULKADAR AHEMAD,DECD. -
Applicant(s)
Versus
MUSAMIYA IMAM HYDER BAX RAZVI - Opponent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR JR SHAH for Applicant(s) : 1,
MR SHAKEEL A QURESHI for Opponent(s) : 1,
=========================================================
CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.MEHTA
Date : 09/03/2007
ORAL ORDER
Mohmmadhanif Abdulkadar, petitioner, has filed this application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging the impugned order dated 23.1.2007 passed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court No. 9, Ahmedabad, below Darkhast No. 290 of 2004. By the impugned order the learned trial Judge was pleased to reject the objection raised by the judgement debtors Nos. 2, 3, 7 and 8 are not tenable and dismissed. The learned trial Judge further held that the objections raised by the third parties Nos. 9 to 21 and other ten persons are not legally supported and not tenable and hence dismissed. The learned trial Judge has further held that possession warrant is ordered to be issued for the land Survey mentioned in the said order.
HC-NIC Page 1 of 3 Created On Sun Feb 28 05:55:19 IST 2016
CRA/31/2007 2/3 ORDER
I have heard Mr. Percy Kavina, learned
advocate for Mr. Janak R. Shah, learned advocates for the applicant. He has pointed out the judgement in the case of Musamia Imam Haider Bax Razvi Vs. Rabari Govindbhai Ratnabhai and others reported in AIR 1969 SC 439 which was decided on 21.8.1968. In the said matter the Hon'ble Supreme Court has set aside the judgement and order of this Court and decree of the 5th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division at Ahmedabad dated 30.7.1960 should be restored. The plaintiff will be entitled to receive costs.
Mr. Kavina, learned advocate, has invited my attention to the Gujarat Devasthan Inams Abolition Act, 1969 particularly Section 5 of the Act which provides Abolition of certain Devasthan Inams together with their incidents and Devasthan lands to be liable to payment of land revenue. He has specifically relied on Section 5(a) of the said Act which provides that all Devasthan inams except in so far as they consist of a grant or recognition as a grant of cash allowance or allowance in kind shall be and are abolished. In view of this subsequent enactment of the Act whatever rights the judgement creditor has got, in view of the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, according to him, the said rights are no longer in existence. He has further stated that the validity of the said Act was also challenged before the Division Bench of this Court in the case of NARENDRAPRASADJI MAHARAJ VS. STATE reported in 13 GLR 404. He has further stated that HC-NIC Page 2 of 3 Created On Sun Feb 28 05:55:19 IST 2016 CRA/31/2007 3/3 ORDER the Court has held that whatever rights which he is entitled to, the petitioner has to file an application before the Executing Court. In view of the same, he filed objection before the Executing Court. The Executing Court was pleased to reject the application and passed an order that he must hand over the possession to respondent herein. He has also invited my attention to the paper book which has been produced by him particularly earlier order in the Civil Suit dated 31.8.1979 by the City Civil Court No. 10, Ahmedabad, in Civil Suit No. 3108/1971. In view of the same, Rule. I have heard Mr. Shakeel Qureshi, learned advocate for the respondents. He states that the matter may be kept on 29.3.2007. Till then the respondents state that they will not execute the decree. Mr. Shakeel Qureshi, learned advocate, waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondents.
(K.M. MEHTA, J) (pkn) HC-NIC Page 3 of 3 Created On Sun Feb 28 05:55:19 IST 2016