Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 926 (GUJ)

PATEL JAYANTIBHAI VIRDAS v. STATE OF GUJARAT

2021-10-08

NIKHIL S.KARIEL

body2021
ORDER : Heard learned Advocate Mr. Jay S. Shah on behalf of the petitioner and learned AGP Ms. Dharitri Pancholi on behalf of the respondent-State. 2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged an order passed by the Deputy Collector, Visnagar in Disputed/Case No. 5 of 2020 dated 16.3.2021. 3. Learned Advocate Mr. Shah on behalf of the petitioner would submit that he would not press this petition with liberty to approach the District Collector for challenging the impugned order and whereas learned Advocate would submit that as the resultant effect of the order in question the name of the government may be mutated in the revenue records with regard to the land in question, therefore the Collector Mehsana, may be directed to consider an application for interim injunction which may be preferred by the present petitioner along with the substantive appeal. 4. Having regard to the submissions made by learned Advocate for the petitioner, permission to withdraw is granted. 5. The petitioner to prefer a substantive appeal before the District Collector, Mehsana challenging the order dated 16.3.2021 passed by the Deputy Collector, Visnagar within a period of two weeks from the date for receipt of this order. Upon receipt of the appeal preferred by the petitioner along with the application for interim injunction, the Collector, Mehsana shall hear and decide the application for interim injunction, at the very first stage after giving appropriate opportunities to all the parties concerned as expeditiously as possible and within an outer limit of 6 weeks from the date of filing of the application. The District Collector may also consider an application which would be preferred by the applicant for condoning delay in preferring the appeal more particularly keeping in view the fact that the petitioner has approached this Court challenging the order of District Collector. 6. It is clarified that this Court has not gone into the merits of the matter and whereas the District Collector Mehsana may take an appropriate decision on the merits of the matter. 7. It is further clarified that in case the petitioner would be aggrieved by the decision of the Collector, Mehsana it would be open for the petitioner to challenge the same before appropriate forum in accordance with law. 8. With this limited observations and directions this petition is disposed of.