AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.J. Desai, J
By way of the present petition under Articles 14, 21, 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs:-
"(A) HON'BLE COURT be pleased to admit and allow this petition;
(B) HON'BLE COURT be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari, or a writ in the nature of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing and setting aside the impugned order passed by the respondent No. 1 i.e. Ld. Special Secretary, Revenue (Dispute) Appeal (in short SSRD), Ahmedabad in No.MVV/HKP/VDD/215/2017 dated 28/06/2018 and directed to the revenue authority to confirmed the revenue entry No. 3469 and 3491 mutated in the revenue record of the disputed land on 23/03/2011 and 03/05/2011 in the interest of justice;
(C) HON'BLE COURT be pleased to pending the hearing and final disposal of this petition, to stay the implementation, operation and execution of impugned order passed by the respondent No. 1 i.e. Ld. Special Secretary, Revenue (Dispute) Appeal (in short SSRD), Ahmedabad in No. MVV/HKP/VDD/215/2017 dated 28/06/2018 and further directed to the revenue authority to maintain the status-quo with regard to the revenue records of the disputed land in the interest of justice;"
I have heard Mr. Vinod M. Gamara, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1 on advance copy. I have considered the case put forward by the petitioners that the petitioner No. 1 who is the Power of Attorney Holder has executed an agreement to sell in favour of petitioner No. 2 who happens to be his wife and pursuant to the same, an entry which was posted was objected by the original owners who had executed Power of Attorney in favour of petitioner No. 1. I have also considered the fact that the original owners have subsequently sold the land in question to third parties whose names are mutated in the revenue record and the said entries mutated in the revenue record in favour of the purchasers are subject matter before the District Collector at the instance of the petitioners as well as considering the fact that the petitioners have filed Civil Suits with regard to the right over the land in question, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned orders. Hence, the present petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.
It is pertinent to note that the revisional authorities have rightly observed that the entries would be subject to outcome of the Civil Suit No. 275 of 2016 and hence, no further observations are required to be made in the present petition.
It is hereby made clear that this Court has not dealt with the civil rights of the parties with regard to the land in question.