Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1141 (GUJ)

Dineshsinh Amarsinh Zala 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 call in question the legality and validity of the order dated 17th January, 2017 passed by the S.S.R.D at Ahmedabad, by which, the S.S.R.D rejected the revision application filed by the applicants herein, thereby affirming the order passed by the Collector, Sabarkantha dated 10th November, 2015. 2. The dispute pertains to the land bearing Survey No. 120, old Survey No. 89, situated at Mouje Singa, Taluka: Idar. The applicants herein questioned the legality and validity of the two entries bearing Survey Nos. 26 and 80 respectively mutated on 12th December, 1954 and 30th January, 1959 respectively. The Deputy Collector, on the basis of the gross and inordinate delay, declined to entertain such appeal questioning the legality and validity of the entries, and by his order dated 26th December, 2013, dismissed the appeal. 3. Being dissatisfied, the applicants preferred RTS Revision No. 91 of 2014 before the Collector, Sabarkantha. The Collector, Sabarkantha, by his order dated 10th November, 2015, rejected the revision application thereby affirming the order passed by the Deputy Collector. 4. Bering dissatisfied, the applicants went before the S.S.R.D, and the S.S.R.D also, by its order dated 4th January, 2017, rejected the revision application, thereby affirming the order passed by the Collector. 5. Being dissatisfied with the concurrent findings of three revenue authorities, the applicants are here invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. Mr. V.M. Vyas, the learned counsel appearing for the applicants has a very serious grievance to redress as regards the approach of the Collector and the S.S.R.D Mr. Vyas submits that indisputably, the entries of 1954 and 1959 came to be challenged by his clients but while declining to entertain the proceedings on the ground of gross and inordinate delay, the Collector and the S.S.R.D ought not to have gone into the merits of the case, more particularly, as regards the possession etc. 7. Mr. Vyas, the learned counsel appearing for the applicants is right to a certain extent. In the cases of gross delay of more than 50 years, the applications could have been rejected only on the ground of delay rather than observing anything as regards the merits of the case. 7. Mr. Vyas, the learned counsel appearing for the applicants is right to a certain extent. In the cases of gross delay of more than 50 years, the applications could have been rejected only on the ground of delay rather than observing anything as regards the merits of the case. Be that as it may, even if some action or order of an authority is not in accordance with law, still this Court can decline to interfere in exercise of its extraordinary power or supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. I take notice of the fact that the applicants have filed a Regular Civil Suit No. 63 of 2013 in the court of the learned Civil Judge (JD), Idar. The civil suit has been filed for a declaration and injunction. An application Exh.5 has been filed along with the suit, but it appears that till this date, the civil judge has not taken up Exh.5 for hearing. 8. This petition is disposed of with the observation that the rights of the applicants, if any, in the property in question will be determined by the civil court on its own merits and on the basis of the evidence that may be led by the parties, oral as well as documentary. The civil court shall, in no manner, be influenced by any of the observations made by the revenue authorities in the impugned orders. Even while deciding the application Exh.5, seeking injunction, the court concerned shall decide it own its own merits without being influenced in any manner by any of the observations made by the revenue authorities as regards the possession of the property. 9. With the above, this application is disposed of. The civil judge concerned shall take up the application Exh.5 for hearing at the earliest and dispose it of with order within a period of three months from the date of the receipt of the writ of the order.