Amitbhai Anilbhai Banker vs District Collector

Ashutosh J. Shastri, J

This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed for the purpose of seeking following reliefs:-

(A) Your Lordship may kindly be pleased to issue Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, direction or Order to quashed and set aside the

impugned orders dated 15.10.2009 passed by the City Survey Superintendent, Ahmedabad in Case No.76 of 2009, and the order dated 28.03.2013

passed by the Ld. City Deputy Collector; Ahmedabad in CTS Appeal No.71 of 2011, order dated 27.07.2015 passed by the Ld. District Collector,

Ahmedabad in LB Revision Application No.91 of 2014 & order dated 13.07.2017 passed by the Ld. Secretary (Appeal), Revenue Department,

Ahmedabad in Revision Application No.165 of 2015 at Annexure-I, J.K & L respectively to this petition.

(B) Your Lordship may kindly be pleased to issue Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, direction or Order to quashed and set aside the

impugned orders dated 21.01.2009 passed by the Ld. City Mamlatdar, Ahmedabad in Case No.274 of 2008, order dated 20.12.2013 passed by the Ld.

City Deputy Collector, Ahmedabad in RTS Appeal No.740 of 2011 & RTS Appeal No.827 of 2011, order dated 27.07.2015 passed by the Ltd.

District Collector, Ahmedabad in LB Revision Application No.174 of 2014 & order dated 13.07.2017 passed by the Ld. Secretary (Appeal), Revenue

Department; Ahmedabad in Revision Application No.166 of 2015 at Annexure-M, N, O & P respectively to this petition.

(C) Your Lordships may kindly be pleased to allow the Revision Application No.165 of 2015 & Revision Application No.166 of 2015 filed by the

present petitioners before the Ld. Secretary (Appeal), Revenue Department, Ahmedabad.

(D) Pending hearing and final disposal of this petition, Your Lordship may kindly be pleased direct the present respondent Nos. 2 & 3 to maintain the

status-quo in respect of the land bearing Final Plot No.225 & 262, T.P. Scheme No.14, Shahibaugh, Ahmedabad, Mouje- Dariyapur-Kajipur, City-

Taluka, Ahmedabad.

(E) ….............â€​

Learned advocate Mr. Prabhakar Upadhyay appearing for the petitioners, after arguing for some time, has candidly submitted that the orders

passed by the authorities are concurrently against the petitioners and it is undisputed by him that it is not disputed by the petitioners that the said

authorities have passed the orders after examination of the material placed before them and as such, has left it to the discretion of the Court without

further submission and requested to pass suitable order in the interest of justice.

Considering the aforesaid brief submission made by Mr. Upadhyay, this Court is of the clear opinion that the petition is filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India against the three concurrent decisions which are passed by the competent authorities well within their bounds of authorities and

while passing the impugned orders, the authorities have examined, as is reflecting from the orders, every material which is placed before them and as

such, when well reasoned discretion has been exercised by the competent authority concurrently, Court is of the opinion that this is not a fit case in

which extraordinary jurisdiction deserves to be exercised.

The law on the issue of exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction is well propounded and as such, by referring to the decision of the Apex Court in the

case of Mohd. Inam Vs. Sanjay Kumar Singhal and Others reported in (2020)7 SCC 327, this Court is of the opinion that no case is made out for to

call for any interference. Since the Court has taken assistance of the said judgment of the Apex Court, particularly para 34 thereof, the same reads as

under:-

“34. It is a well settled principle of law, that in the guise of exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court

cannot convert itself into a court of appeal. It is equally well settled, that the supervisory jurisdiction extends to keeping the subordinate tribunals within

the limits of their authority and seeing that they obey the law. It has been held, that though the powers under Article 227 are wide, they must be

exercised sparingly and only to keep subordinate courts and Tribunals within the bounds of their authority and not to correct mere errors. Reliance in

this respect can be placed on a catena of judgments of this Court including the ones in Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde & Ors. vs. Millikarjun

Bhavanappa Tirumale, Bathutmal Raichand Oswal vs. Laxmibai R.10 (1960) 1 SCR 890 37 Tarta & Anr.11, M/s India Pipe Fitting Co. vs. Fakruddin

M. A. Baker & Anr.12, Ganpat Ladha v. Sashikant Vishnu Shinde, Mrs. Labhkuwar Bhagwani Shaha & Ors. vs. Janardhan Mahadeo Kalan & Anr.,

Chandavarkar Sita Ratna Rao vs. Ashalata S. Guram, Venkatlal G. Pittie and another vs. Bright Bros (Pvt.) Ltd., State of Maharashtra vs. Milind &

Ors., State Through Special Cell, New Delhi vs. Navjot Sandhu Alias Afshan Guru and others, Ranjeet Singh vs. Ravi Prakash, Shamshad Ahmad &

Ors. vs. Tilak Raj Bajaj (Deceased) Through LRs. and others, Celina Coelho Pereira (Ms.) and others vs. Ulhas Mahabaleshwar Kholkar and

others.â€​

Accordingly, the petition is devoid of any merit and stands DISMISSED.