Gujarat High Court
Bharatbhai Vitthalbhai Sojitra ... vs State Of Gujarat - Through on 3 October, 2013
Author: Anant S.Dave
Bench: Anant S. Dave
BHARATBHAI VITTHALBHAI SOJITRA THROUGH P O A BHAVESH RAJANI....Petitioner(s)V/SSTATE OF GUJARAT - THROUGH SECRETARY C/SCA/7132/2013 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7132 of 2013 ================================================================ BHARATBHAI VITTHALBHAI SOJITRA THROUGH P O A BHAVESH RAJANI....Petitioner(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT - THROUGH SECRETARY & 81....Respondent(s) ================================================================ Appearance: MR MIHIR THAKORE, SENIOR COUNSEL with MR AB MUNSHI, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR ROHAN YAGNIK, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Respondent(s) No. 1 MR ARPIT A KAPADIA, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 12 , 26.1 - 26.1.3 , 26.2 - 26.9 , 27.1 - 27.7 , 28 - 29 NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1 - 4 , 6 - 7 , 9 - 12 , 14 - 15 , 18 - 26.1.3 , 26.2 - 26.4 , 26.8 - 26.9 , 27.1 - 27.4 , 27.6 - 27.7 , 28 - 29 , 63 , 65 - 66 , 68 - 69 , 72 , 74 , 79 , 81 NOTICE UNSERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 16 - 17 , 30 - 58 , 60 - 62 , 67 , 70 - 71 , 73 , 75 - 78 , 80 SERVED BY AFFIX(N) for the Respondent(s) No. 59 UNSERVED-EXPIRED (N) for the Respondent(s) No. 5 , 8 , 13 , 64 , 82 ================================================================ CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE Date : 03/10/2013 ORAL ORDER
Heard learned Counsels appearing for the respective parties and learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent State Mr. Rohan Yagnik.
In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the following prayers are made :-
(A) This Honorable Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 8-3-2013 passed by the Secretary to the Government of Gujarat, Revenue Department (Appeal), Ahmedabad in Revision Application No.RDA/Land/SAT/22 of 2012 at Annexure O hereto; and consequently grant interim relief as prayed for in the said application for interim filed by the petitioner in the said Revision Application;
(B) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, the Honorable Court may kindly be pleased to stay execution, operation and implementation of the order dated 29-8-2012 passed by the Collector, Surat in Land/73AA/Appeal No.8 of 2011 whereby he has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner herein and confirmed the order dated 18-12-2010 passed by the Deputy Collector, Choryasi Prant, Surat in Land Revenue Code Section 73AA/Remand Case No.1 of 2008 whereby the Deputy Collector has ordered forfeiture of the land in dispute free from all encumberances to the Government and has also imposed penalty of Rs.45,00,000/- on each of the plot-holders;
(C) Be pleased to grant such other and further relief or reliefs as may be deemed just and expedient by this Honorable Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case;
(D) Be pleased to award costs of this petition to the petitioner.
Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Mihir Thakore with learned Counsel Mr. A.B. Munshi appearing for the petitioner contends that the Revision Application No.MVV/JM/ST/22 of 2012 meaning thereby the Revision Application No.22/2012 is pending before the Secretary, Department of Revenue (Appeal), State of Gujarat and is challenged in this petition as the order dated 08.03.2013 by which the interim injunction asked for in the above Revision Application was refused. The revisional authority has assigned reason that the sub-ordinate revenue authorities have found breach of provisions of Section 73AA of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 (hereinafter referred to in short as 'the Code') and that the revisionist had not prima-facie established that there was no such breach of Section 73AA of the Code. It is submitted that the petitioner is possession of the property and has constructed a residential premise and in a case where the revision application is to be heard, the revisional authority was duty bound to prevent possession of the immovable property.
Against the above, learned Counsel appearing for the private respondents Mr. Arpit A. Kapadia contends that the revisional authority was justified in refusing interim relief in view of concurrent findings of the Court as also the revenue authorities about breach of principles of Section 73AA of the Code.
Upon hearing learned Counsels appearing for the respective parties, perusal of the records of the case including the order impugned, I am of the view that the above order dated 08.03.2013 was passed wherein hearing of the Revision Application was fixed on 30.04.2013. While issuing Notice, this Court has passed the following order on 17.04.2013 :-
Heard Mr. Mihir Thakore, learned senior advocate with Mr. Ariez Munshi, learned advocate for the petitioner.
Issue notice returnable on 26th June, 2013.
By way of ad-interim relief, it is directed that no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner pursuant to the impugned orders.
It is clarified that pendency of the present petition shall not preclude the revisional authority from proceeding further with the proceedings pending before it.
In the aforesaid circumstances, keeping this matter for hearing and permitting the revisional authorities to proceed with the revision application will not serve any purpose. Instead, by continuing the interim relief as granted vide order dated 17.04.2013, the revisional authority namely the Special Secretary is directed to decide the revision application, preferably on or before December 31, 2013.
In the aforesaid circumstances, this petition is disposed of. It is made clear that continuation of interim relief granted on 17.04.2013 shall not have any bearing on the merits of the Revision Application and this Court has not entered into the merits of the contentions raised by learned Counsels for the parties.
Sd/-
(ANANT S.DAVE, J.) CAROLINE Page 5 of 5