IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 2693 of 2004 For Approval and Signature: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.R.DAVE ============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : NO to see the judgements? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? : NO 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : NO of the judgement? 4. Whether this case involves a substantial question : NO of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder? 5. Whether it is to be circulated to the concerned : NO Magistrate/Magistrates,Judge/Judges,Tribunal/Tribunals? -------------------------------------------------------------- JIVIBEN S MAKWANA Versus ARVINDBHAI GIRDHARBHAI PATEL -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: 1. Special Civil Application No. 2693 of 2004 MR RS SANJANWALA for Petitioner No. 1-3 MR RR SHAH for Respondent No. 1-10 MR LB DABHI, ASST.GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent No. 11 MR AR MAJMUDAR for Respondent No. 12 -------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.R.DAVE Date of decision: 05/04/2004 ORAL JUDGEMENT Rule. Service of rule is waived by learned advocate Shri R.R. Shah for respondents Nos. 1 to 10, by learned AGP Shri L.B. Dabhi for respondent No. 11 and by learned advocate Shri A.R. Majmudar for respondent No. 12. At the request of the learned advocates, the petition is finally heard today. 2. The petitioners have been aggrieved by an order dated 28.1.2004 passed by respondent No. 11, whereby they have been restrained from putting up construction on the land in question, though the DDO, Bharuch, has sanctioned the revised plan, and the petitioners have been permitted to put up construction in accordance with the revised plan. 3. In pursuance of notice issued by this court, learned advocate Shri R.R. Shah has appeared for respondents Nos. 1 to 10. It is his case that the DDO, Bharuch, has committed an error by sanctioning the revised plan because by virtue of the revised plan, the petitioners would be putting up construction on a common plot and a road, over which respondents Nos. 1 to 10 have right. It has been submitted by him that as the impugned order passed by respondent No. 11 is in the nature of an ad-interim relief, instead of approaching this court by way of this petition, the petitioners should have represented their case before the revisional authority especially in view of the fact that the revision application was to be finally heard on 16.3.2004. 4. It is not in dispute that the hearing could not take place on 16.3.2004 and the matter is still pending before the revisional authority. 5. Learned advocate Shri Sanjanwala appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the revisional authority has no jurisdiction to entertain the revision application and, therefore, according to him, the petitioners should not have been restrained from putting up construction. 6. Learned AGP Shri Dabhi appearing for respondent No. 11 has submitted that all possible efforts shall be made by respondent No. 11 to hear the revision application finally as soon as possible so that no injustice may be caused to any of the parties. 7. Looking to the facts of the case, respondent No. 11 is directed to finally hear the revision application before 15.5.2004 and he shall communicate his decision to the concerned parties before 21.5.2004. 8. The petitioners have been permitted to continue construction by an ad-interim order dated 1.3.2004 passed by this court. It is clarified that if any construction is put up by the petitioners during the pendency of the revision application, and if the revision application is decided against the petitioners, the petitioners shall not claim any equity in respect of the construction put up by them and they shall demolish the construction upon the matter being finally decided by the concerned court against the petitioners. 9. Needless to say that no observation has been made on the merits of the case and it would be open to the petitioners to raise all objections, even with regard to maintainability of the revision application, before the revisional authority. I am sure that the revisional authority shall consider all submissions made by the concerned parties and shall decide the revision application in accordance with law. 10. The learned advocates have assured this court that their counterparts appearing before the revisional authority shall extend their co-operation so that the revision application can be decided within the time prescribed by this court. 11. In view of the above direction, the petition stands disposed of as allowed. ad-interim order dated 28.1.2004 passed by respondent No. 11 restraining the petitioners from putting up construction is quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute to the above extent with no order as to costs. D.S. permitted. (A.R. Dave, J.) (hn)