Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/12621/2011 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 12621 of 2011
=========================================================
DHANUBEN
D/O GANDABHAI MULJIBHAI PATEL & 12 - Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 2 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
AB MUNSHI for
Petitioner(s) : 1 - 13.
MS VS PATHAK, ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for
Respondent(s) : 1,
None for Respondent(s) : 2 -
3.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT
Date
: 20/10/2011
ORAL
ORDER
1. Appropo
an order passed on 10.10.2011, the learned advocate for the
petitioner has prayed for either hearing of the matter finally or
some relief in the nature of protection.
2. Learned
Assistant Government Pleader is also ready for the final disposal of
the matter.
3. This
Court is not inclined to hear the matter for final disposal today,
due to paucity of time. Hence, let there be a notice, returnable on
14.11.2011. In the meantime and till the returnable date, status-quo
shall be maintained by all the concerned. This status-quo order is
required to be made as this Court has observed on 30.09.2011 as
under:
This Court on 29/8/2011 passed
the following order.
“1.
Leave to amend by deletion of averment in respect of annexing
document which could not be annexed.
2.
The petitioner has made averments in para no. 29, 30 and 31 of the
petition, indicating that the petitioner filed petition being
Special Civil Application No. 18817 of 2006, wherein this Court was
pleased to pass order on 5/10/2006, pursuant whereof representation
was made which was received by the Revenue department on 12/10/2006,
and that has so far not been decided as could be seen from the
averments in para no. 31.
3.
Ms. Pathak, learned AGP to take specific instruction in this behalf
as to whether the representation is received, and if yes, how has it
been dealt with and for that purpose the matter is kept on 2/9/2011.
4.
Office is directed to make available copy of this order to learned
AGP for its compliance.”
Thus,
the observations made in this order unequivocally go to show that
learned AGP was to receive specific instructions as to whether the
representation dated 12/10/2006 is received, and if yes, then how
that representation was dealt with, and for that purpose matter was
adjourned to 2/9/2011.
The
affidavit-in-reply is filed by one gentleman, namely Mr. Dipak C.
Sonawala, I/c. Addl. Mamlatdar & ALT, Chorayasi, Sutat. This
affidavit is affirmed on 23/9/2011. Said affidavit-in-reply does not
contain anywhere even remotely any reference to the representation
talked about in para-2 of the order dated 29/8/2011. The
representation was admittedly made to the Revenue Secretary and
instructions ought to have been received from the State in the
Revenue Department. The inaction on the part of the respondent,
despite there being an order on 29/8/2011 is indeed unfortunate and
leaves this Court with no other option but to now make specific
order directing the Secretary, Revenue Department to issue specific
instruction in respect of the observations made in order dated
29/8/2011, which is set out in this order itself and the said
affidavit is to be filed on or before 7/10/2011, failing which it
will be presumed that the officer at the level of Mamlatdar do not
act in accordance with the final opinion expressed by the State
authorities in respect of the land in question and the appropriate
order will be passed.
It is reiterated
at the cost of repetition that the Revenue Secretary has to file
affidavit precisely on the observation with regard to the action
taken on the representation dated 12/10/2006. The office is
directed to supply copy of this order to learned AGP, on demand,
immediately for its onward transmission for compliance.
At this stage, it
is also contended on the part of the petitioners that the
unfortunate part is that, though there is clear finding by the
concerned Mamlatdar & ALT dated 31/8/2009 that the land is not
falling under the purview of provision of Bombay Tenancy &
Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, the Incharge Addl. Mamlatdar & ALT
is filing an affidavit contrary to the stand expressed by the
competent authority at the relevant time.
Be that as it
may, the Revenue Secretary is hereby directed to comply with the
order. Adjourned to 7/10/2011.”
The
reasonings indicating in the order dated 30.09.2011 is the reasonings
for passing the order of status-quo. S.O. to 14.11.2011.
(S.R.BRAHMBHATT,
J.)
dks
Top