SCA/876019/1997 1/5 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 8760 of 1997 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA Sd/- ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? NO 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? NO 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? NO 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? NO 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? NO ========================================================= GANPATBHAI RAMUBHAI PATEL & 4 - Petitioner(s) Versus AJAYKUMAR HASMUKHBHAI VASHI & 2 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MRS KETTY A MEHTA for Petitioner(s) : 1, 1.2.1, 1.2.2,1.2.3 - 5. MR DHIRENDRA MEHTA for Respondent(s) : 1, 1.2.1, 1.2.2, 1.2.3,1.2.4 MR KETAN J. DWIVEDI, AGP. for Respondent(s) : 2 - 3. ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA Date : 16/12/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. On 5.12.1997 when Notice came to be issued this Court granted Ad-interim relief in the following terms : SCA/876019/1997 2/5 JUDGMENT “Notice returnable on December 24,1997. By way of ad-interim relief it is directed that the Entries Nos. 1612, 1613 and 1614 shall not be changed in any manner till further orders”. 2. Thereafter, on 10.11.1998 when the petition came to be admitted at the time of issuance of Rule the Ad-interim relief came to be confirmed by making following order : “ 1. Rule. Heard with regard to interim relief. Mr. Dhirendra Mehta, learned advocate for respondent no.1 and Mr. D.P. Joshi, Ld. A.G.P. for respondents nos. 2 and 3 have opposed continuance of the interim relief. On going through the impugned order passed by the learned Special Secretary, it would appear that the matter deserves consideration at the time of final hearing. At the same time when it has been submitted by Mr. Mehta that there are proceedings u/S. 84 C of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act as also proceedings of civil suit pending between the private parties to this petition, it would be just and proper to continue the interim relief while observing that such proceedings SCA/876019/1997 3/5 JUDGMENT will have to be dealt with and decided in accordance with law without being influenced by this order. The interim relief granted at the time of admission is hereby continued till final disposal of this petition with an observation that the proceedings u/S. 84-C of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act and the proceedings of civil suit between the private parties to the present petition shall be dealt with and decided in accordance with law without being influenced by this order. Service of rule is waived by Mr. Dhirendra Mehta, learned advocate for respondent no.1 and Mr. D.P. Joshi, Ld. A.G.P. for respondents nos. 2 and 3”. 3. Today, attention of the Court is invited to judgment dated 30.10.2001 rendered by Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in Revision Application No. TEN.B.A. 85 of 1996 in relation to proceedings under Section 84C of the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (the Tenancy Act). The operative portion of the order reads as under : SCA/876019/1997 4/5 JUDGMENT “Present Revision Application No.TEN.B.S.85/96 is partially allowed and order of the Dy. Collector dated 24.6.96 in Appeal Case No.12/96 and order of the Mamlatdar, Palsana dated 6.1.96 in Case No.9/94 is cancelled and the matter is remanded to the Mamlatdar, Palsana for taking necessary action and verifying the claim of the applicant being agriculturist as per the instructions contained in Circular of R.D. dated 24.4.2001”. 4. In the circumstances, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner and the learned Advocate for the respondent state that the interim order made by this Court may continue and the matter may be adjourned so as to await the outcome of the proceedings pursuant to order made by Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. 5. Considering the fact that the petition is pending since 1997 it would not be in the interest of the parties to keep the proceedings pending while at the same time permitting the proceedings u/s.84C of the Tenancy Act and the Civil Suit, which is already pending, to continue. Hence, in the interest of the parties, without entering into the merits of the controversy and recording any opinion, it would SCA/876019/1997 5/5 JUDGMENT suffice if the interim relief which is operating since 1997 is permitted to continue till point of time the proceedings u/s.84C of the Tenancy Act and the suit, being Special Civil Suit No. 217 of 1994 as stated by the learned Counsel for the respondent, are decided. 6. In the circumstances, the petition is disposed of by continuing interim relief as stated hereinbefore. Rule is discharged. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- (D.A.Mehta, J.) M.M.BHATT