Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CRA/35/2010 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CIVIL
REVISION APPLICATION No. 35 of 2010
=========================================================
MAVJIBHAI
BHAGWANBHAI DIYORA - Applicant(s)
Versus
HARIBHAI
SHAMJIBHAI DIYORA & 5 - Opponent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
DHARMESH V SHAH for
Applicant(s) : 1,
MR DAKSHESH MEHTA for Opponent(s) : 1 - 2.
RULE
SERVED for Opponent(s) : 3 - 4,
MS VS PATHAK, AGP for Opponent(s) : 5,
6
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MS.JUSTICE BELA TRIVEDI
Date
: 03/05/2011
ORAL
ORDER
1. Rule.
2. Heard
learned Advocate Mr.D.V.Shah for the applicant and Mr. Dakshesh Mehta
for the respondents as regard interim relief. It has been submitted
by learned Advocate Mr. Shah for the applicant that the order passed
by the Deputy Collector is in violation of the provisions contained
in the Mamlatdar’s Court Act and
therefore deserves to be stayed pending this Civil Revision
Application. According to Mr. Shah, the applicant is not in a
position to farm his land as the respondents have caused obstruction
by putting Pala preventing the natural flow of water. Mr. Shah also
submitted that he has a strong prima facie case and is likely
to succeed in the revision application and therefore the interim
relief as prayed for is required to be granted. However, Mr. Dakshesh
Mehta for the respondents, challenging the maintainability of the
present C.R.A., has submitted that the order passed by the Deputy
Collector being just and proper, it should not be stayed, which
otherwise would amount to confirming the order passed by the
Mamlatdar and allowing the present C.R.A. at admission stage.
3. Having regard to the
submissions made by the learned advocates for the parties and the
impugned order passed by the Deputy collector, it appears that the
Deputy Collector, while allowing the revision application filed by
the respondents against the order of Mamlatdar, has observed that
since there is a “Voklu” on the southern side of the suit
land in question, with the consent of the parties, the water could be
flown by putting some channel. Having regard to the said order, it
appears that the Deputy collector has made out a new case inasmuch as
the land of the respondents is situated on the eastern side of the
applicant’s land and not on the southern side and therefore the
question of consent of parties would not arise. Under the
circumstances, the implementation of the said order of Deputy
Collector is required to be stayed, none the less, that would not
tantamount to reviving the order passed by the Mamlatdar. Under the
circumstances, while granting the interim relief staying the
implementation of order dated 25.01.2010 passed by the Deputy
Collector in Revision case No.4 of 2009, the parties are directed to
maintain status quo as regards the flow of natural water, during the
pendency of Civil Revision Application.
(BELA TRIVEDI, J.)
jani
Top