SUMINTRABEN Vs. COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside the order dtd. 10/6/2019 passed by the respondent no. 1 whereby, it has directed the parties to maintain status quo with respect to survey no. 252/2 (hereinafter referred to as "the land in question").

(2.) Ms. Kruti M Shah, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, submitted that initially, entry no. 4604 was posted in the revenue record on 12/3/2007 recording the transaction of registered sale deed which was certified on 14/7/2007 and thereafter, various entries were mutated in the revenue record on the basis of entry no. 4604. It is submitted that the petitioner, aggrieved, preferred an appeal before the Deputy Collector who, vide order dtd. 29/5/2019, quashed and set aside the entry no. 4604 and all the consequential entries which were posted in the revenue record. It is submitted that the petitioners have filed caveat application before the Collector; which was duly served on 4/6/2019. It is submitted that the copy of the caveat was also served upon all the parties, which is clear from the speed post (page nos. 40-47). It is further submitted that disregarding the caveat application, the office of the Collector, showing undue haste has decided the stay application by passing the order dtd. 10/6/2019 directing the parties to maintain status quo. It is submitted that despite there being a caveat application filed, no copy was served to the petitioner and proceeding before the Collector was ex-parte. It is submitted that the undue haste shown by the respondents as well as by the Collector which does not inspire confidence. It is also submitted that the sale deed, with respect to the land in question was executed on the basis of the purported Power of Attorney; however, no such Power of Attorney was ever been executed by the petitioner. Though demanded, the copy of the Power of Attorney, has not been provided. It is therefore urged that the order dtd. 10/6/2019, has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice and deserves to be quashed and set aside.

(3.) Mr. Tattvam Patel, learned Advocate appearing for the private respondents, has supported the order dtd. 10/6/2019 passed by the Collector on the ground that the order is just, legal and valid. Adverting to the aspect of Power of Attorney to the deponent, it is submitted that a valid Power of Attorney was executed by the petitioner in favour of the deponent and based on such Power of Attorney, the sale deed was executed in the year 2004. It is also submitted that since 2004, the name of the petitioner was reflected in the revenue record. It is also submitted that the order dtd. 10/6/2019 was challenged by the petitioner before this Court and this Court was pleased to pass the order dtd. 23/12/2019 directing the parties to maintain status quo. It is stated that taking advantage of the order dtd. 23/12/2019, the petitioner, got the name of the private respondents removed from the revenue record. In view of the removal of the name of the private respondents from the revenue record, the order dtd. 10/6/2019 has been rendered infructuous. Mr. Patel, learned Advocate states that in view of the subsequent development, the matter be remitted back to the Collector with direction to decide the revision application at the earliest.