Gujarat High Court
Amitbhai Anilbhai Banker vs The District Collector on 4 March, 2021
Bench: Ashutosh J. Shastri
C/SCA/4207/2021 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4207 of 2021
==========================================================
AMITBHAI ANILBHAI BANKER
Versus
THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR PRABHAKAR UPADYAY(1060) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2
for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
MR MEET M THAKKAR, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI
Date : 04/03/2021
ORAL ORDER
1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is
filed for the purpose of seeking following reliefs:-
(A) Your Lordship may kindly be pleased to issue Writ of
Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, direction or Order
to quashed and set aside the impugned orders dated
15.10.2009 passed by the City Survey Superintendent,
Ahmedabad in Case No.76 of 2009, and the order dated
28.03.2013 passed by the Ld. City Deputy Collector;
Ahmedabad in CTS Appeal No.71 of 2011, order dated
27.07.2015 passed by the Ld. District Collector, Ahmedabad
in LB Revision Application No.91 of 2014 & order dated
13.07.2017 passed by the Ld. Secretary (Appeal), Revenue
Department, Ahmedabad in Revision Application No.165 of
2015 at Annexure-I, J.K & L respectively to this petition.
(B) Your Lordship may kindly be pleased to issue Writ of
Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, direction or Order
to quashed and set aside the impugned orders dated
21.01.2009 passed by the Ld. City Mamlatdar, Ahmedabad
in Case No.274 of 2008, order dated 20.12.2013 passed by
the Ld. City Deputy Collector, Ahmedabad in RTS Appeal
No.740 of 2011 & RTS Appeal No.827 of 2011, order dated
27.07.2015 passed by the Ltd. District Collector, Ahmedabad
in LB Revision Application No.174 of 2014 & order dated
13.07.2017 passed by the Ld. Secretary (Appeal), Revenue
Department; Ahmedabad in Revision Application No.166 of
2015 at Annexure-M, N, O & P respectively to this petition.
(C) Your Lordships may kindly be pleased to allow the Revision
C/SCA/4207/2021 ORDER
Application No.165 of 2015 & Revision Application No.166 of
2015 filed by the present petitioners before the Ld.
Secretary (Appeal), Revenue Department, Ahmedabad.
(D) Pending hearing and final disposal of this petition, Your
Lordship may kindly be pleased direct the present
respondent Nos. 2 & 3 to maintain the status-quo in respect
of the land bearing Final Plot No.225 & 262, T.P. Scheme
No.14, Shahibaugh, Ahmedabad, Mouje- Dariyapur-Kajipur,
City- Taluka, Ahmedabad.
(E) ................"
2. Learned advocate Mr. Prabhakar Upadhyay appearing for the
petitioners, after arguing for some time, has candidly submitted that
the orders passed by the authorities are concurrently against the
petitioners and it is undisputed by him that it is not disputed by the
petitioners that the said authorities have passed the orders after
examination of the material placed before them and as such, has
left it to the discretion of the Court without further submission and
requested to pass suitable order in the interest of justice.
3. Considering the aforesaid brief submission made by Mr.
Upadhyay, this Court is of the clear opinion that the petition is filed
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the three
concurrent decisions which are passed by the competent authorities
well within their bounds of authorities and while passing the
impugned orders, the authorities have examined, as is reflecting
from the orders, every material which is placed before them and as
such, when well reasoned discretion has been exercised by the
competent authority concurrently, Court is of the opinion that this is
not a fit case in which extraordinary jurisdiction deserves to be
exercised.
4. The law on the issue of exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction is
well propounded and as such, by referring to the decision of the
Apex Court in the case of Mohd. Inam Vs. Sanjay Kumar Singhal
C/SCA/4207/2021 ORDER
and Others reported in (2020)7 SCC 327, this Court is of the
opinion that no case is made out for to call for any interference.
Since the Court has taken assistance of the said judgment of the
Apex Court, particularly para 34 thereof, the same reads as under:-
"34. It is a well settled principle of law, that in the guise of
exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India, the High Court cannot convert itself into a court of
appeal. It is equally well settled, that the supervisory
jurisdiction extends to keeping the subordinate tribunals
within the limits of their authority and seeing that they obey
the law. It has been held, that though the powers under
Article 227 are wide, they must be exercised sparingly and
only to keep subordinate courts and Tribunals within the
bounds of their authority and not to correct mere errors.
Reliance in this respect can be placed on a catena of
judgments of this Court including the ones in Satyanarayan
Laxminarayan Hegde & Ors. vs. Millikarjun Bhavanappa
Tirumale, Bathutmal Raichand Oswal vs. Laxmibai R.10
(1960) 1 SCR 890 37 Tarta & Anr.11, M/s India Pipe Fitting
Co. vs. Fakruddin M. A. Baker & Anr.12, Ganpat Ladha v.
Sashikant Vishnu Shinde, Mrs. Labhkuwar Bhagwani Shaha &
Ors. vs. Janardhan Mahadeo Kalan & Anr., Chandavarkar Sita
Ratna Rao vs. Ashalata S. Guram, Venkatlal G. Pittie and
another vs. Bright Bros (Pvt.) Ltd., State of Maharashtra vs.
Milind & Ors., State Through Special Cell, New Delhi vs.
Navjot Sandhu Alias Afshan Guru and others, Ranjeet Singh
vs. Ravi Prakash, Shamshad Ahmad & Ors. vs. Tilak Raj Bajaj
(Deceased) Through LRs. and others, Celina Coelho Pereira
(Ms.) and others vs. Ulhas Mahabaleshwar Kholkar and
others."
5. Accordingly, the petition is devoid of any merit and stands
DISMISSED.
(ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI, J)
OMKAR
