Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/3955/2010 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 3955 of 2010
=========================================
SHAHISHAV
SIRISHCHANDRA PARIKH & 1 - Petitioner(s)
Versus
SECRETARY
REVENUE DEPARTMENT (APPEALS) & 17 - Respondents
=========================================
Appearance :
MR
NIRAV C THAKKAR for
Petitioner(s) : 1 - 2.
MS MOXA THAKKAR, AGP for Respondent(s) :
1,
None for Respondent(s) : 2 -
18.
=========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA
Date
: 05/04/2010
ORAL
ORDER
The
petitioners have sought to challenge order dated 27.10.2009 in
Revision Application No. 1 of 2009 of the Secretary (Appeals) of the
Revenue Department of the State Government; and in the alternative to
direct the Special Secretary to hear and decide said revision
application expeditiously within a period of four months. Admittedly,
the impugned order is an interim order directing maintenance of
status quo in respect of order dated 10.08.2008 of the Collector,
Dahod, and the petitioners have been heard before making of that
order. Thereafter, the petitioners have made an application for
earlier hearing of the main revision application and that application
is dismissed with the direction that hearing will be fixed in serial
order. It was stated at the bar by learned counsel, Mr. Thakkar, that
another application was also already made on 23.02.2010 and it was
pending before the Special Secretary. Learned AGP, Ms. Thakkar,
appearing for the State on advance copy, submitted that the
petitioners were not entitled to any priority in the matter of
hearing of the revision application filed by the respondent nos. 3 to
18 herein, even as the Special Secretary was at liberty to fix
hearing of the revision petition at an appropriate earlier date. It
was, however, also submitted that the Special Secretary (Appeals) was
at present overburdened with approximately nineteen thousand revision
applications and other proceedings.
Under
the above circumstances, it would be appropriate and in the interest
of justice that the State Government should take appropriate measures
for earlier and timely disposal of the revision applications under
Section 211 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, in view of large number
of parcels of land and litigants concerned being locked in litigation
and the development and use of the land being severely and directly
affected. While the Government and the Special Secretary (Appeals)
may take appropriate measures for expeditious disposal of the pending
revision applications, they may give appropriate priority to the
hearing of Revision Application No. 1 of 2009. Liberty is granted to
the petitioners to press their application or make fresh application
for early hearing of the pending revision application, with the
clarification that the observations made in the impugned order may
not be treated as conclusive or final at the time of hearing of the
main revision application.
Upon
the above observations and clarification being made, the petition was
not pressed for any order on merits. Accordingly, it is disposed with
no order as to costs. Direct service.
[D.H.WAGHELA,
J.]
Jyoti
Top