The court emphasized the necessity of granting interim relief to prevent irreversible prejudice during ongoing proceedings.

ORDER :

1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Riddhesh Trivedi on behalf of the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Nikunj Kanara on behalf of respondent-State.

2. Learned Advocate Mr. Trivedi tenders additional affidavit of the petitioner. The same is taken on record.

3. By way of this petition, the petitioner challenges order dated 12.02.2025 passed by the Special Secretary Revenue Department (SSRD) more particularly whereby the SSRD has refused to grant interim relief in Revision Application preferred by the present petitioner more particularly against an order passed by the Collector, Banaskantha in Appeal Case No. 12 of 2023 dated 07.03.2024 whereby the Collector has set aside an order dated 29.09.2022 passed by the Deputy Collector, Tharad.

4. Considering the submission made by learned Advocate Mr. Trivedi and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Kanara, it would prima facie appear to this Court that vide the order dated 29.09.2022, the Deputy Collector had rejected a revision application by the third party applicant, who according to the petitioner did not have any locus as regards the property in question. Perusing the order it would appear that while the aspect of locus had been discussed by the Deputy Collector more particularly as regards absence of the same in favour of the applicant before the Deputy Collector, and whereas, the Deputy Collector had mainly rejected the application on the ground of unexplained delay of 14 years in challenging the order dated 02.12.2008 whereafter the petitioner had purchased the property in question vide a registered sale-deed dated 27.01.2009. It would appear that the private respondent herein, had challenged the said order before the Collector and whereas the Collector had set aside the order passed by the Deputy Collector and the matter was remanded to the Deputy Collector to reconsider on the aspects noted in the order more particularly from paragraph No. 5A to paragraph no. 5I. It would appear that while the application had been rejected on ground of unexplained delay, the Collector had interfered inter alia on the ground that the case of the private respondent, ought not to have been rejected merely on the ground of delay and whereas perusal of observations at paragraph no. (5A)- (5I), would reveal that the Collector had remanded the matter back to the Deputy Collector for hearing on merits. The said order having been challenged before the SSRD, the SSRD had not granted interim relief in favour of the petitioner.

4.1 It would appear that in addition to the order of the Collector not condoning the delay of 14 years, to this Court it would appear that while the matter was at large before the SSRD, non grant of interim relief would result in an irreversible position whereby the remand case being decided either way, the same would have the capacity to prejudice the present petitioner. To this Court it would appear till the SSRD finally decides the revision application interim ought to have been granted so as to ensure that there is no multiplicity of proceedings.

5. Having regard to the above prima facie observations, issue Notice for final disposal upon the respondents returnable on 30.04.2025. Learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of notice on behalf of respondent-State. Direct service for rest of the respondents is permitted.

6. On the returnable date the private respondents shall ensure appropriate representation failing which, this Court would pass appropriate orders as regards the above observation.

7. Till the present petition is finally decided, the order passed by the Collector, Banaskantha dated 07.03.2024 in Appeal Case No. 12 of 2023 shall remain stayed.