ORAL ORDER
1. Rule. Rohan Yagnik, learned AGP waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent No. 1.
2. By way of the present petition filed under Articles 14, 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 7.12.2013 passed by the respondent No. 2, by which the authority has refused to grant interim relief during pendency of the appeal, which has been preferred by the petitioners challenging the decision dated 22.08.2013 passed by the Collector refusing to certify the entries made in the name of the petitioners, who had purchased the old tenure land from another purchaser, who had purchased the land from the society, pursuant to the order passed under the provision of Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act, 1960.
3. Mr. Ansin Desai, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners by relying upon several documents would submit that if interim relief is not granted, if new entry is not mutated in the revenue record with regard to the disputed land and if it is further transferred to some other persons, the revision would become infructuous, and therefore, the authority be directed to decide the revision as expeditiously as possible and during the pendency of this revision application, all the parties be directed to maintain status quo with regard to the disputed land.
4. Mr. Rohan Yagnik, learned AGP for the respondents. He would submit that there is no illegality has been committed by the respondent No. 2 while refusing the interim relief till then as the petitioners have failed to establish prima facie case, and therefore, the petition be dismissed in limine.
5. Heard advocates for the respective parties. I have perused the several orders passed by the different authorities under the provision of Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act, 1960, order passed by the District Registrar granted permission to the original land owner - society to sell the disputed land, and thereafter, the order of converting the disputed land into old tenure etc. Without going into details at this stage and considering the submission made by the learned advocate for the petitioners, I pass the following order:
(a) Respondent No. 2 shall decide Revision Application No. 82 of 2013 as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order.
(b) The parties are directed to maintain status quo till then.
(c) The petitioners shall not alienate, sell, transfer the disputed property to any other person till the revision application is decided.
4. With the above direction, the present petition is disposed of. Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted.