1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Gujarat
  4. /
  5. 2019
  6. /
  7. January

Hitendra Keshavbhai Chauhan vs State Of Gujarat

High Court Of Gujarat|26 February, 2019
1. By way of the present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the following prayers have been made :
"[b] issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction to quash and set aside the order impugned at Annexure A, B and C.
[c] Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of above captioned petition, direct the Respondents to direct mutation of name of the petitioner as the owner of the land in question.
2. Mr. N.K.Majmudar appearing for the respondent Nos. 4.1 to 4.4 and filed affidavit in reply on their behalf.
3. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the petitioner had purchased the property in question by executing the registered sale deed in the year 1999 from Shantilal Chhaganbhai Shah and Yogesh Shantilal Shah, who had purchased the said land from Subhasbhai Parbhubhai Patel, whereas, third parties claiming their rights over the property Page 1 of 3 C/SCA/3078/2019 ORDER in question allegedly purchased by executing registered sale deed in their favour from one Bhikhiben Prabhubhai Patel. Proceedings initiated and ultimately, the impugned order has been passed way back on 12.02.2016.
4. Though, it is held that the entry would be subject to the civil suit pending before the different Courts, the legal heirs of Subhasbhai Parbhubhai, who had sold the property to the third persons and entry has been mutated and therefore, present petition has been filed challenging the impugned order.
5. Mr. Shah, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, would submit that since the entry is challenged by the petitioner by way of filing Dispute Case No. 65 of 2018 pending before the Mamlatdar, Kamrej as well as the entry is challenged by way of initiating the proceedings i.e. Appeal No. 305 of 2018 pending before the Deputy Collector, Kamrej and therefore, the present petition can be disposed of by giving appropriate direction.
6. Mr. Majmudar, learned advocate appearing for respondent Nos. 4.1 to 4.4, opposed this petition and submitted that the petitioner has been filed at belated stage.
7. Having heard learned advocate appearing for the respective parties at length, the following order would meet end of justice.
[i] Both the concerned authorities below are hereby directed to decide the proceedings i.e. Dispute Case No. 65 of 2018 pending before the Mamlatdar, Kamrej as well as Appeal No. 305 of 2018 pending before the Page 2 of 3 C/SCA/3078/2019 ORDER Deputy Collector, Kamrej in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order, after giving opportunity of hearing to all concerned.
[ii] The parties including the private respondents shall cooperate for disposal of the above-referred proceedings.
8. It is hereby made clear that this Court has not gone into merits of the case.
9. With the above direction, present petition stands disposed of.
Direct service is permitted.
(A.J.DESAI, J) *F.S.KAZI.....
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
  • A J Desai