- (1.)THIS petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been preferred with the following prayers:
(A) This Honourable Court may be pleased to admit this petition; (B) This Honourable Court may be pleased to issue writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction by quashing and setting aside the order passed by respondent No.13 and 15. (C) This Honourable Court may be pleased to stay the operation of the orders passed by respondent No.13 and 15 till final disposal of the present petition. (D) This Honourable Court may be pleased to pass such other and further relief, as the nature and circumstances of the present case may require.
The petitioners are mainly aggrieved by the order dated 28.03.2013, passed by respondent No.15 (Additional Secretary [Appeals], Revenue Department), whereby the application for stay preferred by the petitioners, pending the revision application has been rejected.
(2.)MR .K.M.Paul, learned advocate for the petitioners, submits that by rejecting the application for stay preferred by the petitioners, respondent No.15 has more or less rendered the revision application of the petitioners infructuous as, the grounds for rejection of the application touch upon the merits of the case. In other words, respondent No.15 has almost finally confirmed the order of the Collector, Mehsana (respondent No.13), which has, in any case, been given effect to during the pendency of the revision application. Learned advocate for the petitioners submits that in view of the fact that the impugned order touches upon the merits of the case, the same may be quashed and set aside and the petitioners may be granted a fresh opportunity of hearing, insofar as the application for stay is concerned. Mr.K.M.Sheth, learned advocate for respondents Nos.1 to 12, submits that the order passed by respondent No.15 is just and proper as it has been passed after going through the facts and circumstances of the case. Ms.Shruti Pathak, learned Assistant Government Pleader, for respondents Nos.13 to 15, submits that respondent No.15 has prima-facie found that the order of respondent No.13 is just and proper, hence, no ground is made out for grant of stay in favour of the petitioners. Learned Assistant Government Pleader has submitted that the entry in dispute has rightly been mutated in the revenue record in the name of the elder son of Manilal Jethalal, hence, the order of respondent No.13 in this regard is found to be correct.
Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and upon perusal of the impugned order, it is apparent that the reasons given by respondent No.15 in support of rejection of the application for grant of interim stay preferred by the petitioners, touch upon the merits of the case. In fact, the reasons given by respondent No.15 are such that would render the revision application of the petitioners almost infructuous as respondent No.15 has virtually upheld the order of respondent No.13 that is impugned before him. The Court is informed that during the pendency of the petition, effect has been given to the order of respondent No.13. While deciding an application for grant of interim stay, it is trite law that the revenue authorities would not enter into the merits of the case or pass an order in a manner that would amount to almost deciding the revision application. The grounds rendered by respondent No.15 for rejection of the application for stay filed by the petitioners are such that would certainly have an effect on the final decision of revision application. As such, the impugned order dated 28.02.2013 passed by respondent No.15 deserves to be quashed and set aside. It is, accordingly, quashed and set aside.

(3.)RESPONDENT No.15 is directed to decide the revision application preferred by the petitioners, in accordance with law and without being influenced by the observations made herein, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The parties shall maintain status-quo during the pendency of the revision application which may be decided by respondent No.15 without being influenced by the observations made the order impugned before him. The petition is partly-allowed in the above terms. Rule is made absolute to the above extent. There shall be no order as to costs.