Gujarat High Court High Court

Shree vs State on 27 September, 2011

Gujarat High Court
Shree vs State on 27 September, 2011
Author: S.R.Brahmbhatt,
  
 Gujarat High Court Case Information System 
    
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

SCA/10066/2011	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 10066 of 2011
 

 
 
=========================================================

 

SHREE
JASAWALA JETHSURWALA & 4 - Petitioner(s)
 

Versus
 

STATE
OF GUJARAT & 3 - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================================
 
Appearance
: 
MR
SP MAJMUDAR for
Petitioners : 1 - 2, 2.2.1, 2.2.2, 2.2.3,2.2.4 - 5.MRVIMALAPUROHIT
for Petitioners : 1 - 2, 2.2.1, 2.2.2, 2.2.3,2.2.4 - 5. 
MS.
V.S.PATHAK LD. AGP for Respondent : 1, 
None for Respondents : 2 -
4. 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 27/09/2011 

 

 
 
ORAL
ORDER

Heard
learned advocate Shri Majmudar and Ms. V.S.Pathak learned AGP, on
advance copy.

The
short question involved in this petition is as to whether the G.R.T.
or Collector would have jurisdiction to adjudicate and decide the
lis arising out of provision of Section 37 of Bombay Land Revenue
Code. The G.R.T. does have jurisdiction, but the route adopted by
the respondent was not in accordance with law. It is the contention
of learned advocate for the petitioner that original order could
have been challenged by the State by way of preferring Revision
Application straightway in G.R.T.

This
Court is of the view that this question is required to be
considered. Hence, Rule, returnable on 25.11.2011.
Ms. Pathak, learned AGP waives service of Rule on behalf of
respondent no.1.

In
view of this fact, when there is prmia facie case made out in
respect of the order of remand to Collector, let the order of remand
be stayed. At the same time the parties i.e. petitioner as well as
respondent shall also maintain status-quo in respect of land in
question wherefrom the controversy arises.

(S.R.BRAHMBHATT,
J.)

Pankaj

   

Top