ORAL ORDER
1. The petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging the order dated 11.05.2018 passed by the Gujarat Land Revenue Tribunal (the Tribunal) whereby the Tribunal has stayed the order dated 11.07.2016 passed by the Deputy Collector impugned before it in Revision Application No.TEN/309/2016 and also ordered to maintain status-quo as regard the site position and the revenue record of the land in question.
2. Learned advocate Mr.Karia for the petitioners drew the attention of the Court to the impugned order, especially, para-1 thereof to point out that the Tribunal had already fixed final hearing of above Revision Application on 13.06.2017, however, instead of hearing the revision application finally, the Tribunal decided only the prayer for interim relief, that is how the impugned order came to be made. Mr.Karia
Page 1 of 3
submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the revision application pending before the Tribunal is required to be heard at the earliest and if this Court is inclined to direct the Tribunal to expedite the hearing of the revision application and to decide the revision application finally within shortest time bound period, the petitioners may not press for the present petition.
3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms.Thakore appearing on advance copy submitted that if the Court is inclined to direct the Tribunal to decide revision application finally, the Court may make appropriate order for hearing of the revision application finally by the Tribunal.
4. The Court having heard learned advocates finds from the impugned order that Revision Application No.TEN/309/2016 was fixed for final hearing on 13.06.2017, however, instead of the hearing the Revision Application for final disposal the Tribunal decided to grant interim relief on 11.05.2018 pending revision application. The Court finds that since the petitioners' request is for hearing of the revision application finally as the Tribunal had already decided to hear the revision application finally as back as on 13.06.2017, the challenge made by the petitioners to the impugned order is not required to be examined on merits and the Tribunal could be directed to finally hear and decide the revision application as early as possible and within time bound period.
5. In view of the above, the petition is disposed of without going into merits of the challenge made to the impugned order, however, with the direction to the Tribunal to finally hear and decide Revision Application No.TEN/309/2016 as early as
Page 2 of 3
possible but not later than six months from the date of receipt of this order. Direct service is permitted.
(C.L. SONI, J)
Vijay
Page 3 of 3