The court emphasized the need for timely resolution of disputes regarding land ownership and the validity of interim orders in the context of family partition claims.

ORDER :

(NIKHIL S. KARIEL, J.)

1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Ajay Jagirdar on behalf of the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Jayneel Parikh on behalf of respondent- State.

2. By way of this petition, the petitioners challenge an interim order passed by the Special Secretary Revenue Department dated 08.01.2025 more particularly whereby an order passed by the District Collector, Gandhinagar dated 19.08.2023 in CB/ RTS/Vasna Hadmatiya/Appeal/ No. 327/2022, has been stayed.

3. Considering the submissions made by learned Advocate Mr. Jagirdar and learned AGP Mr. Parikh and having perused the documents on record it would prima facie appear to this Court that the issue is with regard to entry of a sale-deed in favour of the present petitioners, the present petitioners having purchased a parcel of land which is subject matter of the issue, from respondent no. 6 and 7 herein and whereas the respondent no. 5, who is also family member of respondents no. 6 and 7 having objected to certification of entry with regard to the registered sale-deed in favour of the petitioners.

3.1 It would appear that while the Deputy Collector where the entry had been subjected to challenge, had rejected the entry no. 1433 vide order dated 05.07.2022, the same had been confirmed by the Collector, Gandhinagar vide order dated 19.08.2023 in Revision Application No. CB/RTS/Vasna Hadmatiya/ Appeal No. 327 of 2022. The private respondent no. 5 having challenged the same before the SSRD by preferring Revision Application No. MVV/HKP/GDHN/127/2023, the SSRD had allowed the interim application in the main revision application and had stayed the order passed by the Collector.

4. It would also appear prima facie that the land had devolved upon the respondents no. 6 and 7 by way of a family partition and whereas respondent no. 5 was also a beneficiary of the said family partition and whereas it appears more particularly from the order passed by the Deputy Collector that the private respondent no. 5, had sold the land which had devolved upon him through the very partition to third party.

5. It would also appear that the petitioners having preferred an NA application, with regard to the land in question, the same had been rejected by the Collector on the ground of pendency of the revision application and whereas it is submitted that it is very revision application in which interim order has been passed resulting in the petitioners being required to approach this Court. It is also pointed out that while respondent no. 5 has filed civil suit in the year 2022 for declarations with regard to the land in question, yet, no interim relief has been granted in the said civil suit.

6. Considering the above position, more particularly since it appears that the private respondent no. 5 may probably, be a beneficiary of the very same partition deed by virtue of which the respondents no. 6 and 7 had become owners of the property in question and whereas since it also appears that the private respondent no. 5 had preferred substantive suit where no interim relief is granted, to this Court it would appear that ends of justice would be met if the SSRD is directed to hear and decide revision application preferred by the respondent no. 5 within a stipulated period of time.

7. Hence issue Notice for final disposal returnable on 09.04.2025. On the returnable date respondent no. 5 shall ensure appropriate representation on his behalf failing which this Court would pass the order as above.

8. Having regard to the fact that by way of the impugned order, the SSRD has granted an interim relied in favour of respondent no. 5, which interim relief has not been granted in favour of respondent no. 5 in the Civil Suit which has been preferred by him, the impugned order dated 08.01.2025 passed by the SSRD shall remain stayed. Learned AGP waives service of notice on behalf of respondent – State. Direct service for rest of the respondents is permitted.