JAYANTILAL JAMNADAS THAKKAR Vs. VISHRUT JANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Mr.Vishrut Jani, learned Assistant Government Pleader, waives service of notice of Rule for respondents Nos.1/1, 1/2, 2, 3 and 4, and Mr.Vijay H. Nangesh, learned advocate, waives service of notice of Rule for respondent No.5. Respondent No.6 has been served but has not chosen to put in an appearance before the Court. Hence, as the said respondent does not appear to be interested, there is no requirement of the issuance of notice of Rule to her. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and with the consent of learned counsel for the respective parties, the petition is being heard and decided finally, today.

(2.) This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order dated 07.07.2015, passed by respondent No.1/2, Special Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department ("SSRD "), in Revision Application No.MVV/HKP/BNS/144/14, whereby the application for the grant of interim stay, pending the revision application filed by the petitioner, has been rejected.

(3.) The brief facts of the case, relevant to the decision of the petition are that, one Bhikhabhai Pethabhai Harijan was the owner of the land bearing Survey No.103/1 Paiki-2, situated at Village Kamodi, Taluka Deesa, District Banaskantha, admeasuring 0 Hectare, 25 Are and 28 Square Meters (the land in question). It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner as well as respondent No.6 took care of the said Bhikhabhai Pethabhai Harijan during his last days, therefore, Bhikhabhai executed a Will dated 05.07.2005, bequeathing the land in question to the petitioner and to respondent No.6. The validity of the Will executed by Bhikhabhai has never been challenged by any person. After the death of Bhikhabhai on 29.12.2005, the names of the petitioner and respondent No.6 were mutated in the revenue record, vide Mutation Entry No.1395 dated 23.05.2006. This entry has been certified by the fourth respondent Circle Officer, on 01.11.2006. It is the case of the petitioner that ever since then, the petitioner and respondent No.6 are jointly in possession of the land in question and are carrying on agricultural activities thereupon.