Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/573820/2008 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 5738 of 2008
=========================================================
KANJIBHAI
VALJIBHAI BHALRA & 4 - Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 6 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
ASIT B JOSHI for
Petitioner(s) : 1 - 5.
MR SATYAM CHHAYA, AGP for Respondent(s) :
1,
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for Respondent(s) : 1 - 4.
NOTICE SERVED
for Respondent(s) : 2 - 5, 5.2.2, 5.2.3, 7,
None for Respondent(s)
: 5,
DS AFF.NOT FILED (N) for Respondent(s) : 5.2.1, 5.2.2,
7,
SERVED BY RPAD - (N) for Respondent(s) : 5.2.3
MR AMAR D
MITHANI for Respondent(s) :
6,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
Date
: 01/08/2008
ORAL
ORDER
This
is the second round of litigation. Earlier the petitioners had
approached this Court challenging an order dated 30.10.2006 passed
by the Revenue Secretary in Revision Application filed by respondent
No.6. Learned Single Judge of this Court disposed of the said
petition being Special Civil Application No.4385/2007 by order dated
19.2.2007 and permitted the petitioners to approach the Revenue
Secretary for review or reconsideration of the said order. The
petition was based primarily on the contention that the petitioners
were not served with notice of Revenue Secretary before the revision
application was finally disposed of. The petitioners accordingly
approached the Revenue Secretary and the Revenue Secretary passed
fresh order on 29.2.2008 observing that it has no power to review
its own order. He also found that there was nothing on record to
suggest that no notice was served on petitioner. The petitioner has
therefore, approached this Court once again challenging both the
said orders.
Having
heard learned advocates appearing for the parties for final disposal
of the petition, I find that in the interest of justice, the
petitioners should have been given an opportunity to put-forth their
case before the Revenue Secretary. Though notices were dispatched
through post, there is nothing on record to suggest that it was duly
served on present petitioners. When they approached this Court twice
disclosing on affidavit that no such notices were served and also
approached the Revenue Secretary, therefore, their stand should not
have been discarded on the ground that there is nothing on record to
suggest that notice was served. Only on this limited ground without
expressing any opinion on the merits of the rival claims, both the
orders dated 30.10.2006 and 29.2.2008 passed by the Revenue
Secretary are quashed. Proceedings are remanded for fresh
consideration in accordance with law after hearing both the sides.
Learned
advocate for respondent No.6 submitted that in the meantime the
entries are already made in favour of respondents pursuant to order
of the Secretary and effect of quashing of the said orders would be
that the order passed by the Collector against respondent No.6 would
get revived. It is provided that till the revision application is
disposed of, order of the Collector dated 13.2.2003 and Deputy
Collector dated 15.12.2000, both shall stand stayed and entries
already made shall not be disturbed.
The
petition is disposed of accordingly.
Direct
service is permitted.
(Akil
Kureshi,J.)
(raghu)
Top