ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. Manish Bhatt for the petitioner and learned AGP Mr. J.K. Shah for the respondent No.1 - State.
2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought for following prayers:
"(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate order or direction, directing the respondent authorities to give opportunity to the petitioner by issuing notice for selection / choice of land as per order dated 12.10.1994 passed GRT in Revision Application No.TEN.B.R.1/94 at Annexure-A, confirmed by the learned Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 18.11.2024 in Letters Patent Appeal No.2111 of 2009 and allied matters at Annexure-
B.
(B) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to issue a writ of
Page 1 of 4
mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate order or direction, directing the respondent authorities to consider the representation dated 13.12.2024 at Annexure-C.
(C) That pending the hearing and final disposal of the petition, YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to consider the representation dated 13.12.2024 at Annexure-C.
(D) YOUR LORSHIPS be pleased to grant such other and further order as the nature and circumstances of the case may be required."
3. Considering the submissions made by the learned Senior Advocate and having perused the documents on record, it would appear to this Court that the petitioner is seeking a direction from this Court for implementation of order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.2111 of 2009, whereby order dated 12.09.1994 passed by the learned GRT in Revision Application No.TEN.B.R.1/94 was confirmed.
4. The petitioner has also prayed that his representation dated 13.12.2024 may be directed to be decided by the Authority. The representation dated 13.12.2024, inter alia requesting the respondents to give a choice to the petitioner, while complying with the order of the Revenue Tribunal confirmed by Division Bench of this Court referred to hereinabove.
5. It would also appear to this Court that the order of the Division Bench dated 18.11.2024 in Letters Patent Appeal No.2111 of 2009 is pending scrutiny of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition No.1582-1584 of 2025 and whereas on 27.01.2025, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the said petition and has directed listing the same on
Page 2 of 4
12.02.2025.
6. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Bhatt has also raised grievance as regards a notice issued by the Mamlatdar dated 27.01.2025 under Section 135D of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, whereby the name of the State is directed to be mutated in the revenue record of the land in question subject to the undertaking that the State would follow the final decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The contention on part of the learned Senior Advocate being that the State may not consider the objections, which have been submitted by the petitioner against the certification of the entry, vide his objection dated 31.01.2025.
7. To this Court it would appear that the present petition is absolutely misconceived and premature. It would appear to this Court that while the petitioner is seeking implementation of order passed by the learned GRT as confirmed by Division Bench of this Court, it would be equally important to consider the fact that the matter is pending scrutiny of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Again, as referred to hereinabove, the matter is next listed as early as on 12.02.2025 i.e. on the next Wednesday.
8. Thus, to this Court, it would appear that at this stage, when the Special Leave Petition challenging an order passed by the Division Bench of this Court is pending scrutiny of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it would not be for this Court to interfere and direct implementation of said very order.
9. Again in so far as the notice under Section 135D is concerned, while the statute i.e. the Land Revenue Code provides appropriate remedy to the petitioner, if the State would not initiate a dispute case, which would be the natural corollary, when an objection is raised against certification of an entry and whereas equally true is the fact that when the matter is pending before
Page 3 of 4
the Hon'ble Supreme Court, whatever is done by any of parties including the State, would be always subject to the final decision that would be passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the petition referred hereinabove. Further, this Court would not lose sight of the fact that the State is only intending to mutate the name of the State in the revenue records as far as the land in question is concerned, till the final disposal of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and whereas to this Court, while it would appear that the State should have ideally appraised the Hon'ble Supreme Court before taking such action, but at the same time, when the entire dispute is pending consideration of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the petitioner ought to have brought this issue to the notice of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rather than approaching this Court.
10. Having regard to the above observations, this Court is of the firm opinion that judicial discipline and judicial propriety require this Court not to intervene, when the matter is pending scrutiny before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
11. Thus, in view of the aforesaid position, to this Court, the petition being misconceived, is hereby rejected, reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner to avail appropriate remedy as regards the issues raised in the petition.
(NIKHIL S. KARIEL,J)
Y.N. VYAS
Page 4 of 4