VAGHRI KARSANBHAI FAKIRBHAI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner - seller of the land in question has prayed for appropriate writ, direction or order quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 08.07.2010 passed by the Revisional Authority i.e. Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, State of Gujarat in Revision Application No. 7/2010 by which the Revisional Authority has refused to grant stay of the order passed by the Collector, Mehsana dated 29.12.2009 in R.T.S. Appeal No. 153/2009.

(2.) At the outset it is required to be noted that this Court is conscious of the fact that the present petition is filed challenging the order passed by the Revisional Authority in not granting stay during the pendency of the Revision Application. However, despite the fact that at the initial stage, he was pointed out that Revision Application is still pending, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has made submission on merits for more than 30 minutes and has addressed the Court on merits and therefore, this Court is constrained to consider the case on merits as the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has invited the order on merits. The facts leading to the present Special Civil Application in nut-shell are as under:

(3.) Shri Satyam Chhaya, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that as such when the petitioner executed the sale deed in favour of respondent No. 3 - father of respondent No. 3 on 31.03.2003, the order of status-quo granted by the learned trial Court in Regular Civil Suit No. 8/1997 was in force and the Regular Civil Suit No. 8/1997 was pending and therefore, when the said transaction was in breach of the order of status-quo in Regular Civil Suit No. 8/1997, Collector has materially erred in directing to restore mutation entry No. 7712 on the basis of the registered sale deed dated 31.03.2003. It is further submitted that even otherwise, in view of the pendency of the Special Civil Suit No. 27/2005 filed by the father of the petitioner i.e. Fakirbhai Chhaganbhai Vaghri, Collector, Mehsana ought not to have passed the order to restore the mutation entry No. 7712 and/or the Collector ought to have passed the order of mutating the said entry subject to ultimate outcome of Special Civil Suit No. 27/2005. Shri Chhaya, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has heavily relied upon two decisions of learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of