Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1139 (GUJ)

Kanubhai Karasanbhai Desai v. State of Gujarat

2017-07-03

J.B.PARDIWALA

body2017
ORDER : J.B. Pardiwala, J. By this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the applicants have prayed for the following reliefs: “(a) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari by quashing and setting aside order passed by the Ld. Special Secretary, Revenue Department (SSRD) Appeals on 17.02.2017 in revision filed by the petitioners being no. MVV/BKHP/AMD/2/2014 with that reject the Revision of the petitioners and allowed Non Agricultural permission granted by the District Development officer dated 8.3.1984 in the land situated at survey no. 4.paiki, 21, 175, 229 admeasuring about 52695 sq. mtrs. of mouje: Khodiyar, Ta: Dascroi, Dist: Ahmedabad with that also rejects the NA permission granted by the District Development Officer; (b) Pending admission and final disposal of this petition, Your Lordships be pleased to direct the Respondent Authorities to maintain status quo of the Revenue Records of the land situated at Survey No. 4.paiki, 21, 175, 229 admeasuring about 52695 sq. mtrs. of mouje: Khodiyar, Ta: Dascroi, Dist: Ahmedabad. (c) Your Lordships be pleased to pass such other and further orders as the facts and circumstances of the case may require.” 2. It appears from the materials on record that the dispute pertains to the lands bearing Revenue Survey Nos. 4.p, 21, 175 and 229 admeasuring about 52,695 sq. meters situated at Mouje Khodiyar, Taluka Dascroi, District Ahmedabad. These parcels of land were owned by the respective father of the two petitioners herein. These parcels of lad came to be sold by a registered sale-deed in favour of the respondent no. 5 - Society in the year 1982. 3. On 8th March 1984, N.A permission came to be granted to the Society. The two petitioners herein claiming through the predecessors-in-title questioned the legality and validity of the N.A order passed in the year 1984 on the condition that the Society failed to put up the construction within the stipulated period of time. The challenge before the SSRD failed. Being dissatisfied, the applicants are here before this Court, invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 4. The challenge before the SSRD failed. Being dissatisfied, the applicants are here before this Court, invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 4. I take notice of the fact that the petitioners have filed a Regular Civil Suit No. 124 of 2012 in the Court of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural), seeking declaration and permanent injunction as regards the property in question. 5. I fail to understand how come the petitioners question the N.A permission granted in favour of the Society way back in the year 1984. 6. The record reveals that the land was sold in favour of the Society. The suit in this regard is pending. The respective rights of the two petitioners are yet to be determined by the civil court. In such circumstances, I see no good reason to interfere with the order passed by the SSRD. 7. This application, therefore, fails and is hereby rejected.