JASHVANTKUVARBA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Shri Girish Patel, learned advocate waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent Nos.5 and 6. Ms. Trusha K. Patel, learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 4. In the facts and circumstances of the case and with consent of learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties, present petition is taken up for final hearing today. 1. A grievance which is voiced in the present Special Civil Application is the action of the Mamlatdar, Danta and/or order passed by the Mamlatdar, Danta dated 16.05.2010 certifying mutation entry No.370 despite the order of status-quo/stay granted by the Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, State of Gujarat granted in Revision Application No.50/2008.

(2.) It is the case on behalf of the petitioners that despite the fact that the order of status-quo granted by the Revisional Authority in aforesaid Revision Application No.50/2008 was pointed out and placed before the Mamlatdar, Danta, in utter disregard to the said order granted by the Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, State of Gujarat, Mamlatdar, Danta has certified the mutation entry No.370 which could not have been certified by Mamlatdar, Danta being subordinate to the Revisional Authority.

(3.) In response to the notice issued by this Court, Ms. Trusha K. Patel, learned Assistant Government Pleader has appeared on behalf of concerned respondent Nos.1 to 4 inclusive of Mamlatdar, Danta who has passed the impugned order certifying the mutation entry No.370 despite the order of stay/status-quo granted by the Revisional Authority. Mamlatdar, Danta is also personally present in the Court. An affidavit is filed by the Mamlatdar, Danta tendering unconditional apology for passing the impugned order certifying mutation entry No.370 despite the order of status-quo/stay granted by the Revisional Authority. It is submitted that the impugned order certifying mutation entry No.370 is passed by mistake. It is submitted that having realized the mistake, he has already approached the Collector, Banaskantha vide communication dated 27.03.2010 to take his own order dated 16.05.2010 in suo motu revision in exercise of powers under Rule 108(6) of the Gujarat Land Revenue Rules. It is submitted by him that once he has certified the entry, he has no authority or jurisdiction to recall/review his own order and therefore, he has communicated and/or approached the Collector, Banaskantha to take his own order of certifying mutation entry No.370 in suo motu revision. Ms. Trusha K. Patel, learned Assistant Government Pleader has fairly conceded that infact Mamlatdar, Danta could not have and ought not to have passed the order of certifying mutation entry No.370, in view of the order of status-quo/stay granted by the Revisional Authority. It is submitted that the impugned order of certifying mutation entry No.370 be quashed and set aside and whatever the position prior to passing of the impugned order dated 16.05.2010, be restored. Ms. Trusha K. Patel, learned Assistant Government Pleader has also submitted that Mamlatdar, Danta has tendered his sincere unconditional apology and is also ready and willing to pay the cost, which may be determined by this Court, which shall be paid by him personally.