BALUBHAI NARSINHBHAI PATEL Vs. PRABHUBHAI NARSINHBHAI PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged the order dtd. 18/5/2005 made by respondent No.11 in Revision Application filed by petitioner challenging the order dtd. 16/5/2000 made by the Collector, Bharuch. The dispute has emanated in the following circumstances.

(2.) Heard learned advocate for petitioner. It is submitted that the litigation between the parties as to title of the property is pending before the Civil Court and the observation made by the Revenue Authority that the land in question being a new tenure land cannot be transferred by Will would come in the way of the petitioner in the Civil litigation. It was submitted that the Revenue Authority was not justified in making any such observation.

(3.) The petition is premature inasmuch as the petitioner has not been able to establish at this stage that the petitioner is entitled to the land in question. Therefore, any observation made by the Revenue Authority would have no bearing in relation to the pending suit between the parties relating to the title of the property in question. Furthermore, the impugned order dtd. 18/5/2005 has been challenged almost after three years by way of this petition.