Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 701 (GUJ)

Yasinmiya Mirsabmiya v. Jinnatbibi

2007-10-23

RAVI R.TRIPATHI

body2007
Judgment Ravi R. Tripathi, J.—The petitioners are before this Court challenging interim order passed by the Tribunal dated 11.07.2007 in Revision Application No. BA/170 of 2007. The learned Member of the Tribunal was pleased to stay the orders passed by the authorities below-Mamaltdar, confirmed by the Deputy Collector, till the next order is passed, on condition that the parties shall maintain the status quo of the land in question. 2. Mr. Shah, learned Advocate for the petitioners vehemently submitted that the order is a cryptic and non-speaking order. The learned Advocate submitted that it is a glaring instance of non-application of mind on the part of the authorities. He submitted that it is passed without giving any opportunity to the petitioners in whose favour a right had accrued by virtue of the orders of the Mamaltdar and the Deputy Collector. He submitted that right is taken away by passing this order and that too without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. The learned Advocate for the petitioners also contended that the order has not fixed any next date of hearing so that the petitioners could have agitated their grievances before the Tribunal, which are agitated before this Court in this petition. 3. Mr. Shah, learned Advocate for the petitioners, relied upon two decisions of the Hon’ble the Apex Court, viz (1) in the matter Union of India and Others vs. Jai Prakash Singh & Another reported in AIR 2007 Supreme Court 1363 and (2) in the matter of State of Manipur and Another vs. Chabungbam Thoibisana Devi and Others reported in 2007 (5) SCC 655 . When it is put to the learned Advocate Mr. Shah for the petitioners that whether these judgments of the Hon’ble the Apex Court are in the matter of an interim order or final judgment, he submitted that even if they are in the matter of final judgment, the same analogy must apply to interim orders also. He submitted that, therefore, the order passed by the Tribunal, though it is an interim order, is required to be quashed and set aside on the same analogy laid down by the Hon’ble the Apex Court, in those two decisions. 4. It was inquired from Mr. He submitted that, therefore, the order passed by the Tribunal, though it is an interim order, is required to be quashed and set aside on the same analogy laid down by the Hon’ble the Apex Court, in those two decisions. 4. It was inquired from Mr. Shah, learned Advocate for the petitioners as to what is the ‘actual’ effect/impact of the interim order on the rights of the petitioners before this Court, whether they are prevented from entering upon the land of which they are in possession or whether they are dis-allowed to take away the standing crop from the land in question or in what exact manner, they are adversely affected by the order impugned. Mr. Shah, learned Advocate for the petitioners replied that the right which had accrued in favour of the petitioners by virtue of order passed by the Mamlatdar dated 28.01.2003, confirmed by the Deputy Collector by order dated 13.04.2007 is stayed by the Tribunal and that amounts to putting the right of the petitioners in abeyance without hearing the petitioners and, therefore, the order passed by the Tribunal is required to be interfered by this Court and is required to be quashed and set aside in light of the aforesaid two judgments of the Hon’ble the Apex Court. 5. Fact that the petition is filed against an interim order passed by the Tribunal, fact that Mr. Shah, learned Advocate for the petitioners, is not able to point out any actual damage to the petitioners by the order impugned and fact that the petitioners have not approached the Tribunal with an application/request for early hearing, the present petition is dismissed. Mr. Shah, learned Advocate for the petitioners, insists for fixing an early date for hearing before the Tribunal, cannot be entertained by this Court in absence of any such request to the Tribunal by the petitioners. The Tribunal may consider such request as and when the petitioners file such application for early hearing. To be referred to the Reporters.