Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/11235/2010 4/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 11235 of 2010
To
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 11239 of 2010
=========================================================
LAKHMANBHAI
BACHUBHAI SANKHAT - Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT THROUGH DR. S A GOLAKIA, IAS & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR PJ
KANABAR for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR PRANAV DAVE AGP for Respondent(s) : 1,
None
for Respondent(s) :
2,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 21/09/2010
ORAL
ORDER
These
group of petitions involve common questions on law and facts and
hence, they are disposed of by this common order.
1. By
way of these petitions, the petitioners have prayed to quash the
order passed by respondent no.2 dated 07.04.2010 directing to file
the application of the petitioner for the grant of land by way of
lease as also the order passed by respondent no.1 dated 11.08.2010 in
the Revision Applications, whereby, the same have been rejected on
the ground that it was premature.
2. The
petitioners herein are engaged in labour work. In pursuance of the
Government Resolution dated 10.10.2000 resolving to grant land by way
of lease, the petitioners made application before the
respondent-authority requesting to grant the land along with
necessary documents. The petitioner was informed by the
respondent-authority that earlier one Shri Sukhdevbhai Nanjibhai
Bambhania had made an application, which was rejected by the then
District Collector and that being aggrieved by the said order, a
Revision Application had been preferred before the State Government
and that the concerned authority had directed to maintain status quo
over the land and therefore, nothing can be done on the application
of the petitioner and it may be filed.
3. Against
the said order, the petitioners preferred Revision Applications
before respondent no.1-authority along with application for interim
relief. However, the said Revision Applications came to be rejected
on the ground that they were premature. Hence, these petitions.
4. Heard
learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the documents on
record. In response to the application preferred by the petitioner,
the respondent-District Collector had informed that earlier one Shri
Sukhdevbhai Nanjibhai Bambhania, a resident of Jafrabad, District
Amreli, had made an application requesting to grant him land by way
of lease for the production of salt, which was rejected by the said
authority vide order dated 22.05.2007. Against the said order, said
Shri Sukhdevbhai Nanjibhai Bambhania had preferred Revision
Application before respondent no.1-authority along with an
application for stay. On the said application for stay, respondent
no.1-authority has passed the order dated 09.03.2010 directing to
maintain status quo in all respects. In view of the above order
passed by the competent authority on the Revision Application filed
by said Shri Sukhdevbhai Nanjibhai Bambhania, the respondent
no.2-authority declined to entertain the application filed by the
petitioner and directed to file the same. The Revision Application
filed against the order of respondent no.2 was treated as premature.
5. Looking
to the facts and circumstances of the case, the authorities below
have not committed any error in passing the impugned orders since the
issue is still pending before the competent authority, who has passed
the order of status quo. When the issue is still pending, the
applications of the petitioners could not be decided. In my opinion,
the authorities below were completely justified in passing the
impugned orders since the Revision Application filed by said Shri
Sukhdevbhai Nanjibhai Bambhania is still pending.
6. In
view of the above, I find no reasons to interfere in these petitions.
Hence, the petitions are dismissed. It is, however, observed that
after finalization of the application pending before the
respondent-District Collector, if any land is available for lease,
then after remanding the matter, the authority concerned may decide
the applications of the petitioner, after issuing notice to the
petitioners. With the above observation, the petitions stand disposed
of.
[K.
S. JHAVERI, J.]
Pravin/*
Top