Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/5875/2010 6/ 6 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 5875 of 2010
=========================================================
JIGNABEN
MAHENDRABHAI POPAT & 1 - Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT THROUGH SECRETARY & 2 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
ANSHIN H DESAI for
Petitioner(s) : 1 - 2.
MS MINI NAIR, ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for
Respondent(s) : 1,
None for Respondent(s) : 2 -
3.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HON'BLE
SMT. JUSTICE ABHILASHA KUMARI
Date
: 10/05/2010
ORAL
ORDER
1. This
petition has been filed with the following prayers :
[A] Your
Lordships may be pleased to admit and allow this petition.
[B] Your
Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the
nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction,
by directing the Special Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals),
Ahmedabad, to hear and decide the injunction/stay application filed
by the petitioners in Revision Applications no.MVV/HKP/PRB/9 and
18/2010 forthwith, and/or, within a period of two three weeks
from the date of the order of this Hon’ble Court in the present case,
in the interest of justice.
[C] Your
Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ n the
nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction,
by quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 4/2/2010
passed by the Collector, Porbandar, at Annexure B to he
petition, in the interest of justice.
[D] Pending
admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, Your
Lordships may be pleased to
[i] stay
the operation, implementation and execution of the impugned order
dated 4/2/2010 passed by the Collector, Porbandar, at Annexure B
to the petition, in the interest of justice;
[ii] direct
the respondents, their officers, agents, employees and officers, not
to in any manner dispossess the petitioners from the lands in
question, namely, the land bearing survey No.144 paiki, admeasuring
Acre 2 00 Gunthas, situated at Lushala, Mouje Keshod,
Dist.Junagadh, and as far as the revenue entries No.864, 866, 953 and
980 are concerned, the status quo may kindly be ordered to be
maintained, in the interest of justice.
[E] Your
Lordships may be pleased to pass such other and further relief in
favour of the petitioners, as deemed just and proper, in the facts
and circumstances of the case.
2. At
the very outset, Mr.Anshin H. Desai, learned advocate for the
petitioners has submitted that the petitioners have filed a Revision
Application against the order of the Collector, dated 04.02.2010
before the Special Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals) in March,
2010. Along with the Revision Application, an application for grant
of interim relief, has also been preferred. Thereafter, the
petitioners filed an application dated 23.03.2010, for early hearing
of the stay application, but by communication dated 15.04.2010, the
petitioners have been informed that the hearing of the stay
application has been kept on 05.07.2010.
3. The
learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the interest
of justice would be met, if the concerned authority is directed to
hear the stay application at an early date, as the entry in favour of
the petitioners has been cancelled and there is an apprehension that
the possession of the land in question may be taken away from the
petitioners.
The
learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn attention of this Court
to order dated 22.12.2009 (Coram : M.R.Shah, J.) passed in Special
Civil Application No.13631/2009. As the said order is relevant in the
facts and circumstances of the case, it is being reproduced
hereinbelow :
1. It
is very unfortunate that a litigant has to come before this Court for
an appropriate writ, order or direction directing the revisional
authority to decide and dispose of the stay application at the
earliest.
2. In
the present case, the Revision Application has been preferred by the
petitioners along with the stay application and the said stay
application is pending since last six months, due to non-availability
of the Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, State of Gujarat, who
was to hear the stay application was on leave.
3. As
and when any stay application is preferred the endeavor should be to
decide and dispose of the same at the earliest but not later than two
weeks from filing of the Revision Application. By not deciding and
disposing of the stay application some times it will make the
proceedings infructuous. A litigant is supposed to know where he
stands and for that purpose there shall be a decision on the Stay
Application at the earliest. Under the circumstances, the revisional
authority is hereby directed to decide and dispose of at least the
Stay Application in Revision Application No.9/2009 at the earliest
but not later than two weeks from today.
4. With
this, the present Special Civil Application is disposed of.
3. Ms.Mini
Nair, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent No.1 has
appeared on an advance copy of the petition. It is stated by her that
the application for interim relief has been fixed for 05.07.2010,
which is not such a longer date.
4. Having
heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and in view of
the fact that the Revision Application has been filed in March, 2010,
but the stay application has not been heard till date and the hearing
thereof is fixed for 05.07.2010, this Court is of the considered view
that this is too long a period of time, and by keeping the stay
application pending, a situation may be created in the interregnum
that may act to the prejudice to the petitioners. This Court may also
observe that even though there may be a huge pendency of cases, a
sincere endeavor may be made, at least, to dispose of the stay
applications after considering them, in accordance with law. The
Revision Application itself would take a considerable period of time
before it is finally decided and if, in the interregnum, an adverse
situation is created, the Revision Application may be rendered
infructuous. Further, not hearing the stay application expeditiously
may result in multiplicity of litigation, as has occurred in the
present case. In view thereof, the following order is passed :
The
Special Secretary (Appeals) may consider and decide the stay
application preferred by the petitioners, in accordance with law, as
expeditiously as possible and preferably on, or before, 15.06.2010.
The
petition is disposed of, in the above terms.
(Smt.
Abhilasha Kumari, J.)
~gaurav~
Top