This order disposed of a writ petition alleging violation of status quo while a revision against a mutation order was pending. The court directed the competent authority to reconsider the revision and dispose of it expeditiously.
The writ petition was disposed of with no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR W.P.No.43033 OF 2015
O R D E R :
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Revenue. Sri Harish Kumar, Advocate, takes notice for the 5th respondent.
The petitioner states that against the mutation order of the 3rd respondent in file No.D2/1249/2012, dated 15.03.2014, she filed revision before the 2nd respondent and that the 2nd respondent directed to maintain status-quo vide orders in R.C.E4 155/2014, dated 29.10.2014. The petitioner, however, now complains that in spite of the said status quo order the 5th respondent’s name was incorporated in the revenue records, and though the petitioner has stated to have brought the same to the notice of the 2nd respondent, no further orders are passed. The present writ petition is filled, alleging violation of status quo orders during pendency of the revision before the 2nd respondent.
Learned counsel for the 5th respondent and learned Government Pleader for Revenue stated on instructions that the status quo order was passed on 29.10.2014. However, even before that the order of the 3rd respondent dated 15.03.2014 was implemented by incorporating the name of the 5th respondent in all village accounts and it is, therefore, pointed out that there is no violation of status quo order of the 2nd respondent.
The above facts, therefore, show that the mutation was effected even prior to the orders of status quo. However, since the petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the 3rd respondent, it is appropriate to direct the 2nd respondent to hear and dispose of the revision itself expeditiously after giving notice to both parties and hearing them.
With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition shall stand closed.
____________________________ VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR, J
04.01.2016 kvrm
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR
W.P.No.43033 OF 2015
DATE: 04.01.2016
kvrm
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the mutation violating status quo orders should be quashed and mutation nullified.
Petitioner
5th Respondent
2nd Respondent
3rd Respondent
VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
