CHAMAR DHIRUBHAI LALABHAI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE. Ms. Maithali Mehta, learned AGP waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the nature of controversy and the impugned order under challenge, respondent No. 4- Gram Panchayat is not required to be heard at this stage. With consent of learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, this petition is taken up for final hearing today.

(2.) BY way of this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has prayed for an appropriate writ, direction and order quashing and setting aside the impugned judgment and order dated 24. 2. 2009 passed by respondent No. 1, Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, State of Gujarat passed in Revision Application No. 57 of 2008 as well as impugned communication dated 14. 9. 2009 by the Collector directing the petitioner to handover the possession of disputed land in question till any appropriate decision is taken on remand pursuant to the order passed by the Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, State of Gujarat, passed in Revision Application No. 57 of 2008.

(3.) CONSIDERING the impugned order dated 24. 2. 2009, passed by the Revisional Authority i. e. Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, State of Gujarat, passed in Revision Application No. 57 of 2008 by which the Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, State of Gujarat has remanded the matter, the same is not required to be interfered by this Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India as ample opportunity will be given to the petitioner to submit his case. However, so far as the impugned communication dated 14. 9. 2009 by the Collector, Banaskantha directing the petitioner to handover the possession till an appropriate decision is taken pursuant to the judgment and order passed by Revisional Authority passed in Revision Application No. 57 of 2008 deserves consideration. If during the pendency of any decision, pursuant to the judgment and order passed by Revisional Authority passed in Revision Application No. 57 of 2008, the petitioner is directed to handover the possession, the purpose for remand would be frustrated and/or no fruitful purpose would be served directing the petitioner to handover the possession till the appropriate decision is taken. It appears to the Court that instead of communication dated 14. 9. 2009, if decision would have been taken by the Authority, as per the judgment and order passed by the Revisional Authority passed in Revision Application No. 57 of 2008 at the earliest, it would have been proper.