Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2.2. In the meantime, by an order dated 03.01.2007, the Revision Application preferred by the petitioners came to be rejected by the Collector. The petitioners therefore filed Revision Application No.25 of 2007 before the HC-NIC Page 2 of 9 Created On Sat Sep 09 21:25:43 IST 2017 Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeal), Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as the 'SSRD' for short). In the meantime, legal representative Vanubhai sold the land in dispute to the original respondent No.7 - present opponent No.6, Pankajkumar Mulshankar Taraiyya by a registered sale deed dated 29.05.2007. Accordingly, revenue entry No.5629 came to be mutated in the revenue record which was subsequently certified.

2.7. The respondent No.1 - SSRD, on an application of the present appellant, impleaded the appellant as party respondent in Revision Application No.25 of 2007 and ultimately by an order dated 24.03.2017, SSRD dismissed the Revision Application No.25 of 2007 filed by the original petitioners and thereby confirmed the order passed by the Collector as well as Deputy Collector. Petitioners have therefore filed the captioned petition.

7. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel Mr. Oza submitted that there was a gross delay of more than 19 years in initiating the proceedings by the authority for cancellation of the entry in question. Thus, only on the ground of gross delay in initiating the proceedings the orders passed by the respondent authorities are required to be set aside and therefore when the learned Single Judge has considered the said aspects and admitted the petition, rightly granted interim relief in favour of the petitioners. At this stage, it is submitted that this Court in the petition being Special Civil Application No.4107 of 2008 filed by the petitioners directed the HC-NIC Page 6 of 9 Created On Sat Sep 09 21:25:43 IST 2017 parties to maintain status quo with regard to entry No.2466. Thereafter, the SSRD has also directed to maintain the status quo in the Revision Application No.25 of 2007 filed by the petitioners by an order dated 23.09.2008 and the said order continued till the Revision Application is dismissed by the SSRD in March 2017. Thus, when the interim protection was continued during the pendency of the Revision Application for more than 10 years, learned Single Judge has rightly granted stay in favour of the original petitioners and therefore the present appeal be dismissed.

8. Having considered the submissions canvassed on behalf of the learned advocates appearing for the parties and having gone through the material produced on record, it is revealed that the present appeal is filed against an interim order passed by the learned Single Judge. It has emerged from the record that mutation entry No.2466 was mutated in the revenue record on 21.09.1986 on the basis of the will dated 04.04.1986 executed by the original land owner Jivubha in favour of the petitioners. The said entry was certified on 17.12.1986. The Deputy Collector passed an order on 20.12.2005 in the proceedings being RTS Appeal No.38 of 2004 by which the said entry was cancelled, against which Revision Application No.51 of 2006 was filed by the petitioners, which was also dismissed and HC-NIC Page 7 of 9 Created On Sat Sep 09 21:25:43 IST 2017 against the dismissal of the said Revision Application by the Collector, Revision Application No.25 of 2007 was filed by the petitioners before the SSRD. It is also revealed from the record that when the SSRD has not heard the said Revision Application, petitioners preferred Special Civil Application No.4107 of 2008 before this Court and this Court directed the parties to maintain status quo by an order dated 05.03.2008 and thereafter on 27.08.2008 the said petition came to be disposed of and interim relief was continued. Thereafter also the SSRD by an order dated 23.09.2008 passed an order to maintain status quo during the pendency of the Revision Application No.25 of 2007. The said order of status quo continued till the SSRD dismissed Revision Application No.25 of 2007 on 24.03.2017. Petitioners have, thereafter, preferred the captioned petition and the learned Single Judge granted interim relief in terms of para 16(C).