Point of Law: Implementation and execution of impugned order - It is a settled position of law that whenever there is a statutory remedy created by Statute, that has to be respected and High Court cannot usurp jurisdiction.

ORDER :

1. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has asked for the following reliefs:

(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or directions quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 22.02.2021 passed in RRT/Revision Application No.121 of 2019 by the respondent District Collector (at ANNEXUREI hereto);

(B) During the pendency and final disposal of the present petition YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to stay further operation, implementation and execution of the impugned order dated 22.02.2021 passed in RRT/Revision Application No.121 of 2019 by the respondent District Collector (at ANNEXUREI hereto) and also further be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to maintain statusquo with regard to Entry No.5899 for the land in question;

(C) …………….”

2. The case of the petitioner is that the dispute has arisen with regard to the land situated at village Pransali, Taluka Sutrapada, District Gir Somnath, having Khata No.784, Revenue Survey No.253/P1. The land in question was originally belonging to one Kamlaben Mohanbhai and others. The aforesaid owners, i.e. Kamlaben Mohanbhai and others, executed a registered sale document on 27.11.1997 in favour of respondent Suresh Harilal Sagar and entry to that effect was also made in the revenue record, being entry No.4527. Aforesaid Suresh Harilal Sagar sold the land in question to Naran Samatbhai Zala, Kanabhai Bhikhabhai Zala and Narsingbhai Kanabhai Kher by registered sale document dated 26.7.2018, for which, entry was made as 5899 mutated on 2.10.2018. This entry No.5899 was made in favour of the purchaser of the land in question which includes the present petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that an absolute fraudulent and bogus sale document dated 18.6.2003 came to be executed in favour of respondent Pratapbhai Pithabhai Dodiya, which otherwise could not have been executed since the original owners had sold the land way back in November 1997. This transaction had become a subject matter of Civil Suit No.720 of 2005, which was withdrawn and hence, according to the petitioner, as on date, the suit is not pending. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent Pratapbhai Pithabhai Dodiya further instituted a suit being No.3 of 2013, which came to be initially dismissed for default on 14.7.2015, but then, vide order dated 12.3.2019, the said suit came to be restored to the original file and as such, according to the petitioner, during the period of July 2015 to March 2019, there was no civil suit nor any restraint order of any Court in favour of respondent Pratapbhai Pithabhai Dodiya and as such, since there was no injunction of any Civil Court with regard to mutation of entry, same was executed in favour of the petitioner and other persons. Despite the aforesaid facts, Pratapbhai Pithabhai Dodiya challenged the order of the Assistant Collector before the District Collector by preferring RRT/ Application No.121 of 2019, challenging the entry No.5899, which came to be allowed by the impugned order dated 22.2.2021. The petitioner gave detailed reply in the aforesaid revision application, but according to the petitioner, without considering the reply, an order came to be passed. It is the further case of the petitioner that entry No.5872 has also been mutated in Form No.6 with regard to the aforesaid land in question pursuant to the earlier order of the Mamlatdar dated 4.8.2012 and the said entry came to be challenged before the Assistant Collector, who passed an order on 2.4.2019 in Delay Reg. Application No.,191 of 2018. Agaisnt the said entry No.5872, respondent Pratapbhai Pithabhai Dodiya preferred RRT/ Application No.120 of 2019 which came to be allowed vide order dated 22.2.2021.

3. It is further the case of the petitioner that respondent Pratapbhai Pithabhai Dodiya earlier filed Revision Application No.44 of 2008 before the Spe