Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/7190/2011 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 7190 of 2011
======================================
SAYAJI
HOTEL LTD THROUGH MUNAWAR FAKHRUDDIN GARBADAWALA
Versus
RAMJI
MANDIR TRUST THROUGH JANADAN N MAHANT AND OTHERS
======================================
Appearance
:
MR DHAVAL D VYAS for
Petitioner.
None for
Respondents.
======================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA
Date
: 23/06/2011
ORAL
ORDER
1. The
petitioner has sought to challenge order dated 25.02.2011 of the
Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in the appeal of respondent No.1, being
Appeal No.46 of 2010; whereby the appeal is admitted and order to
maintain status quo is issued. That appeal is preferred from
the order dated 05.08.2010 of Joint Charity Commissioner, whereby
conditional permission to sell the property of the Trust to the
petitioner herein is granted. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that, even as the petitioner does not propose to sell away,
alienate or transfer possession of the immovable property in the near
future, the impugned order to maintain status quo could come
in the way of development of the land, resulting into unnecessary
loss. Therefore, the petition is moved to set aside the impugned
order, but in fact only the order to maintain status quo was sought
to be modified so as to permit development of the land, which is
bought by the petitioner after making full payment exceeding Rs.76
lakhs.
2. It
was fairly conceded that, apparently, the impugned order was only
admitting the appeal and the order to maintain status quo was
restricted to the date on which another order is made. Therefore, it
is open for the petitioner to make appropriate application to the
Tribunal either for expeditious hearing of the appeal itself or, if
it is not feasible, to make a fresh suitable order modifying the
impugned order. As and when such application is made, it will have to
be duly considered by the Tribunal and the Tribunal may make
appropriate order in accordance with law after affording to the
parties opportunity of being heard. Under such circumstances, it is
neither necessary nor in the interest of justice to entertain the
present petition in spite of appropriate alternative remedy being
available to the petitioner. Therefore, the petition is summarily
dismissed with the observation that, if and when the petitioner makes
an application as aforesaid, it may be duly and expeditiously
considered for appropriate order.
(D.H.Waghela,
J.)
*malek
Top