9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 243X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1997 of the Government of Gujarat, Legal Department, referred to in the second respondent's order dated 27.1.1998 (Annexure-C); (B) To quash and set aside:-(i) No.PFCH/2468/177/Bhag.1/E dated 27.11.1997 of the Government of Gujarat, Legal Department, (ii) No.PFCH/2468-177-BHAG, 1.E dated 30.03.1998 of Government of Gujarat, Legal Department, (iii) No.EC/Armash/Vashi/1146/98 dated 2.4.1998 of Government of Gujarat, (iv) No.EC/Srmsdh/Vsdhi/96/99 dated 11.6.1999 of the District Magistrate, Vadodara, (v) Order No.Devsthan/M.A.G./6007/1999 dated 16.6.1999 (Annexure-B) of the second respondent. (C) To stay pending the hearing and final disposal of this petition further operation, implementation and execution of the impugned orders set out in prayer (B) herein before; (D) To restrain pending the hearing and final disposal of the petition the respondents from altering or taking steps to alter any entry in favour of the first petitioner in revenue records relating to any property of estate of Guru Atmaram or withdrawing any notice of attachment issue to any tenant of any property mentioned in the schedules to the order dated 27.1.1998 of the second respondent (Annexure-C); (E) T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oring the properties of Guru Atmaram to him under section 11(2) of the Baroda Nivasrsi Niyam Act, which deals regarding appontment of administrator of properties which cannot be taken in possession for want of eligible heir. 2.3 The Government of Gujarat took a decision to handover the property to the deceased petitioner no.1 immovable properties and cash of Ramji Mandir under temporary custody of Mamlatdar Vadodara. The Joint Secretary of Legal Department of Governement of Gujarat wrote a letter dated 27.11.1997, instructing the Collector of Vadodara to take on the proceedings for entrusting the properties to the first petitioners. In that way of the said order of the respondents and the State Government the deceased petitioner no.1 has submitted a pursis dated 17.12.1997 in the Succession Application No.34 /95 that it was not necessary to proceed further with the said application and accordingly the same can be disposed of. Further, the District Magistrate, Vadodara by his letter dated 26.12.1997, had instucted the Mamlatdar, Vadodara to take immidiate proceedings to entrust the said properties to petitioner no.1 and accordingly, the respondent no.2 made his order dated 27.01.19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an Pole in Wadi aread of Baroda city, one Atmaramdasji was the Mahant of that temple. The devotees of the said Mahant used to donate properties to teh Mahant for the welfare of public at large and this is how the Mahant owned movable and immovable properties worth crores of rupees. That the Mahant was a bachelor and had expired on 04.10.1947. It is further avered that after the death of the deceased Mahant, one Sevadas Keshavdas and Maganlal Jagannath made an application to the District Magistrate, Baroda stating that the deceased Mahant Atmaramdasji had expired without leaving any heir and therefore, the State should take over all the properties of Atmaramdasji. Thereafter, an advertisement was published in the newspaper, wherein the properties of the Atmaramdasji were described and stated that if any person is claiming the said properties then the same should be informed to the authoritye on or before 01.12.1947. Purusant to the said advertisement no claim was recived by the authority within the presribed time limit. Therefore, the properties were declared as unclaimed properties. 3. 1 It is further avered therein that Mahant Ranchhodas, the father of the petitioner no.1 had fil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ji i.e petitioner no.1. It is contended that this exercise is nothing but to rectify the earlier grave error made in passing such order. It is also contended that opportunity of being heard will not serve any purpose. 4. Heard learned Senior Counsel Mr. Mehul Sharad Shah for the petitioner and learned AGP Mr. Nikunj Kanara for respondent no.1, at length. 5. Learned Senior Counsel has vehemently submitted the same facts which are narrated hereinabove. He has also submitted that considering the pendency of the matter and the facts that no opportunity of being heard was given to the petitioner before stalling the process of handing over the properties, the matter may be remanded back to the concerned authorities for deciding afresh after affording appropriate opportunity to the petitioner. 6. Learned AGP Mr. Nikunj Kanara has vehmently opposed the petition and submitted that the present petition deserves to be dismissed. 7. Having considered the submissions made by both the sides, coupled with facts narrated in the affidavit in reply, it is admitted fact that the property in question does not belong to the government. Not only it appears fom the record that the property is of priv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
