KANTILAL SOMNATHBHAI RAMI Vs. RAMI DINESHCHANDRA ISHWARLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been preferred with the following prayers:

(2.) MR .K.M.Paul, learned advocate for the petitioners, submits that by rejecting the application for stay preferred by the petitioners, respondent No.15 has more or less rendered the revision application of the petitioners infructuous as, the grounds for rejection of the application touch upon the merits of the case. In other words, respondent No.15 has almost finally confirmed the order of the Collector, Mehsana (respondent No.13), which has, in any case, been given effect to during the pendency of the revision application. Learned advocate for the petitioners submits that in view of the fact that the impugned order touches upon the merits of the case, the same may be quashed and set aside and the petitioners may be granted a fresh opportunity of hearing, insofar as the application for stay is concerned. Mr.K.M.Sheth, learned advocate for respondents Nos.1 to 12, submits that the order passed by respondent No.15 is just and proper as it has been passed after going through the facts and circumstances of the case. Ms.Shruti Pathak, learned Assistant Government Pleader, for respondents Nos.13 to 15, submits that respondent No.15 has prima-facie found that the order of respondent No.13 is just and proper, hence, no ground is made out for grant of stay in favour of the petitioners. Learned Assistant Government Pleader has submitted that the entry in dispute has rightly been mutated in the revenue record in the name of the elder son of Manilal Jethalal, hence, the order of respondent No.13 in this regard is found to be correct.

(3.) RESPONDENT No.15 is directed to decide the revision application preferred by the petitioners, in accordance with law and without being influenced by the observations made herein, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The parties shall maintain status-quo during the pendency of the revision application which may be decided by respondent No.15 without being influenced by the observations made the order impugned before him. The petition is partly-allowed in the above terms. Rule is made absolute to the above extent. There shall be no order as to costs.