MAHENDRA AMBELAL DESAI Vs. MAHESHBHAI DAMJIBHAI DESAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing and setting aside the order dtd. 17/5/2022 passed by the Special Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals) (hereinafter referred to as "learned Secretary") in revision application no.93 of 2022.

(2.) Mr Digant Popat, learned advocate, at the outset, submitted that the said revision application was filed before the learned Secretary challenging the order dtd. 25/1/2019 passed by the Deputy Collector and order dtd. 28/2/2022 passed by the Collector. It is submitted that learned Secretary, initially, issued a notice dtd. 7/5/2022 fixing the hearing of the stay application on 25/5/2022; however, without there being any advance intimation to the petitioners, the order dtd. 17/5/2022, has been passed granting status quo to be maintained of the revenue record by all the parties. Mr Digant Popat, learned advocate submitted that when the hearing, was fixed on 25/5/2022, there was no reason available to the learned Secretary to have preponed the hearing of the application and passed the order dtd. 17/5/2022. It is submitted that the mode and manner in which the order has been passed directing status quo, is not in the right earnest inasmuch as, the petitioners, have been severely prejudiced by the said order. It is submitted that the registered sale deed, was executed in favour of the petitioners in the year 2006 whereas, another registered sale deed/s, came to be executed in the year 2013 in favour of the private respondent and necessary entry/s, was/were posted in the revenue record. In revision, the Deputy Collector quashed and set aside the same on the ground of earlier registered sale deed in favour of the petitioners. The Collector, confirmed the order of the Deputy Collector and did not entertain the appeal; but, the learned Secretary, has directed maintenance of status quo of the revenue record by all the parties. It is therefore urged that the order has been passed without hearing the petitioners and deserves to be quashed and set aside.

(3.) On the other hand, Mr Dharmesh Devnani, learned advocate appearing on caveat with Ms Poonam Maheta, learned advocate for respondent no.1 (hereinafter referred to as "private respondent") has tried to justify the order dtd. 17/5/2022 passed by the learned Secretary. It is submitted that after the order dtd. 28/2/2022 passed by the Collector, issuing direction as contained in paragraph 5.9, that the notice, came to be issued by the Deputy Collector, requiring the initiation of the proceedings under the provisions of the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947. It is submitted that the revision filed by the private respondent, together with the stay application, was yet to be heard and the Deputy Collector, initiated the proceedings which, resulted into filing of an application by the private respondent. Acceding to the said request, that the learned Secretary, has passed the order. It is submitted that if the proceedings are initiated and concluded by the Deputy Collector, it is likely that the revision application filed by the private respondent would be rendered infructuous. It is submitted that even otherwise, if the Deputy Collector is to pass an order, the resultant effect would be that neither the name of the petitioners nor the name of the private respondent would continue but the name of the original seller would be reflected in the revenue record. It is therefore urged that only with a view to avoiding multiplicity of litigation, that the learned Secretary, has passed the order dtd. 17/5/2022 considering the interest of all the concerned parties.