The court held that parties must establish their civil rights before seeking interim relief in revenue proceedings.

ORDER :

NIKHIL S. KARIEL, J.

Learned advocate Mr. Ajay S. Jagirdar tenderes a draft amendment. The same is granted. To be carried out by 10.03.2025.

1.Heard learned advocate Mr. Ajay S. Jagirdar for the petitioner and learned AGP Mr. Nikunj Kanara for the respondent State.

2. By way of this petition, the petitioner challenges an order dated 04.02.2025 passed by the learned SSRD, whereby the learned SSRD has granted an interim relief in favour of the revision applicant before the learned SSRD, whereby the order passed by the Collector, Gandhinagar, impugned before the learned SSRD is stayed.

3. Considering the submissions made by the learned advocate Mr. Jagirdar and learned AGP Mr. Kanara and having perused the documents on record, it would prima facie appear to this Court that the petitioner herein had purchased a parcel of land of the ownership of respondent Nos.3 to 7 of the present petition and whereas it would appear that the entry with regard to the sale deed entered into by the present petitioner in the year 2023 i.e. entry No.8590 had been objected to by respondent Nos. 3 and 4. It would appear that on basis of such objection, while the entry had been cancelled, the petitioner had challenged the same before the Collector, Gandhinagar, and whereas inter alia on basis of a settlement arrived at between the parties, order of the Deputy Collector had been set aside and entry No.8593 had been directed to be certified. It would appear that the private respondent Nos.1 and 2, who happen to be sisters of private respondent Nos.6 & 7, have approached the learned SSRD challenging the order passed by the Collector, Gandhinagar, and whereas by way of impugned order, the learned SSRD has stayed the order passed by the Collector, Gandhinagar.

4. Considering the submissions made by learned advocates for the respective parties, it would prima facie appear to this Court that the land originally belongs to one Thakor Somaji Ranchhodji and upon his demise somewhere in the year 1989 or thereabouts, an entry came to be mutated in the revenue record being a succession entry No.4466 dated 28.11.2006, whereby names of his sons were entered into the revenue record. It would appear that the grievance of the petitioner - revisionist before the learned SSRD, stands from the said deed, more particularly it would appear that the names of the said revisionists, who were sisters of the respondent Nos.6 and 7 herein, were not entered into the revenue record at the relevant point of time. It would appear that inspite of such being a position, the said revisionists having approached the learned SSRD agitating their grievance for the first time after the year 1989 and having directly approached the learned SSRD without being parties to the proceedings before the Collector or the Deputy Collector as the case may be. and the learned SSRD without considering the fact that the revisionists before the learned SSRD were trying to establish their civil rights upon a parcel of land, under the guise of revenue proceedings had granted an interim relief, more particularly the said revisionists not tried to establish their rights at prior point of time.

5. Having regard to such a situation, issue Notice returnable on 25.04.2025.

By way of ad interim relief, the order passed by the learned SSRD dated 04.02.2025 in Revision Application No. MVV/HKP/GDHN/14/ 2025 is hereby stayed. Direct service is permitted.