ORAL ORDER

Heard learned senior advocate Mr. Mihir Joshi appearing with learned advocate Mr. Kansara for M/s Wadiaghandy for the petitioner and learned senior advocate Mr. Mihir Thakore with learned advocate Mr. A.B. Munshi for respondents no. 4 to 6 and Co learned AGP Mr. Jaynil Parikh for the respondent State.

2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 18.1.2024 passed in Mamlatdar Court Act Section 5(2)/Remand/Suit No.

01/2023.

3. The grievance of the petitioner is multifold wherein in one of the grievance is that while adjudicating the case at Mamlatadar Court Act Section 5(2)/Remand/Suit No. 01/2023, the Mamlatdar has not pronounced the judgment as per the requirement of Section 20 and taking undue benefit of that the private respondents have altered the ground position before even the Revision could be filed.

4. By way of this petition, the petitioners are insisting for restoring the status quo ante by praying for staying of the impugned order. Be that as it may, today when the matter was called out, consensus was arrived at between the respective counsels appearing for respective parties that the petitioners shall file a Revision Application challenging the order dated 18.1.2024 in Mamlatdar Court Act case Suit No. 01/2023, on 19.2.2024 and the same would be numbered on the same day and taken up for hearing immediately next day for hearing of interim stay as well as with a prayer in respect of restoration of status quo ante on the very next day that would be on 20.2.2024, the Deputy Collector may hear the parties on 20.2.2024 and pronounce the decision about any interim relief on the next day i.e on

21.2.2024.

5. Learned senior advocate Mr. Thakore makes a statement that the client that he represents i.e respondent no. 4 to 6 will not change the ground position in respect of land in question existing as on today till order on interim application is pronounced on 21.2.2024.

6. Considering the aforesaid consensus arrived at between the parties as well as considering the fact that in the meantime since the day on which the impugned order was passed, till today, for some of the days even Deputy Collector was also not available in the office. The request seems to be reasonable.

7. In view of above statement the petition is disposed of with following directions:

(1)“the petitioner shall prefer a Revision Application and challenge the order dated 18.1.2024 passed by Mamlatdar, Mandal latest by 19.2.2024 and on the very day, the office of the Deputy Collector Viramgam, shall examine the application and place it for hearing before Deputy Collector, Viramgam immediately on the very next day i.e 20.2.2024 on that day the Deputy Collector shall grant maximum one hour’s hearing to each party and shall conclude the hearing on interim application including a prayer for restoration of status quo ante that the petitioner may make and on the very next day I.e 21.2.2024, Deputy Collector Viramgam is directed to pass a reasoned order recording the contentions of the parties and assign reasons for taking the decisions”.

8. If the Deputy Collector, Viramgam is not available on 20.2.2024, in that case he is directed to intimate Collector, Ahmedabad in advance and then Collector,Ahmedabad may make suitable arrangement for hearing of the stay application by assiningq the Revision Application to any other Deputy Collector as per his discretion but he shall ensure that the record reaches to the concerned Deputy Collector before 10:00 am on the next date of hearing ie 20.2.2024.

9. The petitioners are directed to supply the copy of the Revision Application latest by 2:00 pm on 19.2.2024 by way of soft copy to the advocate Mr.

A.B Munshi with all the annexures.

10. With the aforesaid direction the present petition is disposed of without entering into the merits of the matter.

11. Direct Service is permitted today.

(NIRZAR S. DESAI,J)

MARY VADAKKAN