Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/950420/2008 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 9504 of 2008
=========================================================
RABARI
AMBABHAI RUDABHAI - Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 6 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
MB RANA for
Petitioner(s) : 1,MR
PARSOTAM GAMBHAVA for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR
JK SHAH, AGP for
Respondent(s) : 1,
None
for Respondent(s) : 2 -
7.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
Date
: 22/07/2008
ORAL
ORDER
Heard
learned advocate Shri Rana for the petitioner and learned AGP Shri JK
Shah for the State on advance copy.
Petitioner
has challenged an order dated 10.12.07 passed by the Secretary
Appeals, Revenue Department, Government of Gujarat. By the said
order, the Secretary refused to grant stay against the orders passed
by the Collector as well as the Deputy Collector with respect to the
entries made in the revenue records of the subject matter land.
The
petitioner claims that he has purchased the land through a registered
sale deed. However, prior to the said sale, as per respondent No.2,
the land was mortgaged to him with possession by the original owner.
Both sides sought to have their transactions entered in the revenue
record. The Deputy Collector and the Collector accepted the entries
in favour of respondent No.2 on the basis of registered mortgage
deed, since the sale of the petitioner was subsequent thereto, his
entry was not certified.
When
the situation is as noted above, I do not think that the Secretary
committed any error in not granting interim injunction. Ordinarily,
it is true that when the revision application is pending, not
granting interim relief may result into rendering the revision
application infructuous. However, this is not an inflexible rule and
when the Secretary has in exercise of discretionary powers otherwise
found valid and refused to grant stay, no case for interference is
made out.
Needless
to say, nothing stated herein-above would prevent the petitioner
from establishing his right, title or interest over the suit
property through competent civil courts. The petition is therefore,
disposed of accordingly.
(Akil Kureshi, J.)
(vjn)
Top