AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P.B. Majmudar, J.—The State of Gujarat has filed this Special Civil Application, challenging the order passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in Appeal No. TEN/AR-15 of 1994 dated 3rd January, 1995. By the impugned order, the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the present respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and order passed by the Collector, Rajkot in Land Revision No. 5 of 1991 is quashed and set aside by the Tribunal and the order passed by the Deputy Collector, Rajkot in L.R.C. 37(2) Case No. 21-82-83 dated 15-7-1991 is restored. This petition, which is against the order of the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, is essentially a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
The proceedings in question arise u/s 37 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code. The grandfather of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 herein, one Aja Ramji, applied for occupancy certificate as he was cultivating certain land as a tenant under the Saurashtra Land Reforms Act. Ultimately, in the year 1954, decision was taken to grant the said Aja Ramji occupancy certificate by the Mamlatdar, Rajkot for the land admeasuring 96 acres and 28 gunthas of Village Raiya, District Rajkot. In the year 1955, ultimately, occupancy certificate was issued by the Special Mamlatdar, Rajkot u/s 30 of the Saurashtra Land Reforms Act in favour of said Aja Ramji for the land admeasuring 96 acres and 28 gunthas and it seems that the revenue entry to that effect was also posted in November, 1955 as per the occupancy certificate issued by the Special Mamlatdar. It seems that thereafter, partition took place between the family members and as per the partition/family arrangement, land was divided between three brothers, viz., Pola Aja, Megha Aja and Chaku Aja. Accordingly, by partitioning the land between the three brothers, the entire land, admeasuring 96 acres and 26 gunthas, was divided by three brothers, respectively. Some mutation, entries were accordingly effected on the basis of such partition.
The father of the present respondent Nos. 1 to 3, thereafter, filed proceedings u/s 37(2) of the Bombay Land Revenue Code in July, 1981, contending that the land of respondents was wrongly merged in Survey No. 318 and it was wrongly measured as "Government land". It is required to be noted that, at the relevant time, no Survey Number was given, and therefore, the fields were owned by their names. The occupancy certificate was given as regards fields, viz., Sadadiavalu, Kathiapati, Ghoghavalu, Ghoghavalu Wadi, Ghoghavalu Wadi, Sheriyu and Okhal. Thereafter, survey took place and various Survey Numbers were given to the fields and the area of these fields came to 105 acres 38 gunthas in the new Survey Number. Accordingly, in the new survey, it was found that there was an excess of 9 acres and 10 gunthas from the area mentioned in the occupancy certificate for the fields, mentioned as ''Okhalwala''. The land holder, however, felt, in course of time, that Okhal field, which was 43 acres and 38 gunthas in the occupancy certificate was less in area to the extent of 10 acres and 10 gunthas and the field Okhal was surveyed and was, ultimately, found that certain area of the aforesaid Survey Number came to be merged in the new traverse Kharaba land of Survey No. 318. It appears that, during the intervening years, the record was brought on line with the Survey record and partition among the three sons of Aja Ramji, viz., Pola Aja, Chaku Aja and Meghji Arjan, had taken place.
One of the brothers thereafter approached the authorities on the ground that he had lost area of land from Survey No. 69. Thereafter, the D.I.L.R., Rajkot, made a report dated 27-11-1978 to the Mamlatdar, Rajkot, that the contention of the land holder was not correct and that the new survey was conducted as per the possession of the land holder, for which the signature of the land holder and other persons had been obtained in the Jungle Book at the time of taking up the survey and that the land holder made an encroachment of 10 acres and 10 gunthas in the Government traverse land Survey No. 318. Subsequently, an enquiry u/s 37(2) of the B.L.R. Code was conducted by the then Mamlatdar, Rajkot after issuing necessary notice in the prescribed form under Rule 29 of the Bombay Land Revenue Rules. The Mamlatdar, in the course of the enquiry u/s 37(2), took the depositions of one Pola Aja, who was the aggrieved person, and his witnesses. Deposition of the Surveyor and Talati was also recorded. Thereafter, after considering the documentary evidence on record, the Mamlatdar, ultimately, by his order dated 31-7-1981, came to the conclusion that the claim of Pola Aja that in the new Survey Number, the area of his field Okhal had been reduced to the extent of 10 acres and 10 gunthas was not correct. Accordingly, the Mamlatdar rejected the said claim of said Pola Aja and the disputed land was held to be forming part of the Government traverse Kharaba land Survey No. 318. The said order was challenged by Pola Aja before the G.R.T. by filing Appeal No. TEN/AR. 21 of 1982. The Gujarat Revenue Tribunal allowed the said appeal and the matter was remanded to the Mamlatdar for further enquiry.
After the remand, an enquiry was conducted by the Deputy Collector, Rajkot u/s 37(2) of the Code. The Deputy Collector, thereafter, after considering the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the claim of Premji Pola (son of original applicant Pola Aja) was valid and the land to the extent of 10 acres and 10 gunthas, or so, was mistakenly measured and surveyed in the traverse Kharaba Survey No. 318. Accordingly, the claim made on behalf of said Premji Pola, who was subsequently brought on record, after the death of Pola Aja, was accepted. The said order of the Deputy Collector, Rajkot '' was taken in suo motu revision u/s 211 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code by the District Collector, Rajkot in Case No. 5 of 1991 and the District Collector, ultimately, set aside the order of the Deputy Collector by his order dated 27-4-1994, and ultimately rejected the claim of the land holder. The said order was taken by way of appeal before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, being Appeal No. TEN/AR. 15 of 1994. The Tribunal allowed the said appeal and restored the order of the Deputy Collector. The said order of G.R.T. is impugned in the present petition at the instance of the State Government.
Dated 11-9-2002
On behalf of the State Government, it is argued by Mr. Chauhan, learned A.G.P., that the G.R.T. should not have disturbed the order of the Collector and that the order of the Collector is just and proper and is in accordance with law. It is submitted that, in any case, the Collector was entitled to re-appreciate the evidence at the time of taking the matter in suo motu revision and the order of the Collector, is therefore, required to be restored by setting aside the order of the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. It is submitted that even otherwise, as per D.I.L.R.''s report, encroachment has been established and in that view of the matter, the order of the Collector is required to be restored. Mr. Chauhan has also further submitted that, at the time of survey, on behalf of the respondents, the fact about encroachment is practically admitted and they have also signed the measurement report. Accordingly, he has supported the order passed by the Collector.
On behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3, it is submitted by Mr. A.J. Patel, learned Advocate, that the Collector has gravely erred in taking the matter in suo motu revision. He further submitted that even otherwise, the Deputy Collector was exercising delegated powers of the Collector and once the Deputy Collector has passed an order u/s 37(2) of the Land Revenue Code, such order could not have been taken in revision by the Collector. It is submitted that, in that view of the matter, the initiation of the proceedings by the Collector is without jurisdiction. He submitted that, even otherwise, the Collector has gravely erred in appreciating the entire evidence on record as if he was dealing with an order of the Deputy Collector. It is also further submitted that, even assuming that the Collector was competent to take the order in revision, then also, it was not open for him to re-appreciate the evidence again, especially when he was not exercising any appellate powers. It is, therefore, submitted that the G.R.T. has considered all the aspects of the matter and that the order of the G.R.T. is required to be confirmed and the petition of the State Government, which is in the nature of a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is required to be dismissed. It cannot be said that the Tribunal has committed any error apparent on the face of the record or any error of law. It is also submitted by Mr. Patel, that even otherwise, there is an efficacious alternative remedy available as provided in Section 37(2) of the Bombay Land Revenue Code as the State Government can file a civil suit, challenging the order of the Tribunal, and therefore, also this Court may not exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction by entertaining this petition. It is also submitted by Mr. Patel, that in any case, this Court may not re-appreciate the evidence while deciding the issue in question as the jurisdiction under Article 227 is very limited.
The proceedings initiated by the authorities below are u/s 37 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code. Section 37 provides as under :-
"37. All public roads, etc., and all lands which are not the property of others belong to the Government :- (1) All public roads, lanes and paths, the bridges, ditches, dikes, and fences, on or beside, the same, the bed of the sea and of harbours and crocks belong high water-mark, and of rivers, streams, nallas, lakes, and tanks, and all canals, and water-courses, and all standing and flowing water and all lands wherever situated, which are not the property of individuals or of aggregates of persons legally capable of holding property, and except insofar as any rights of such persons may be established, in or over the same, and except as may be otherwise provided in any law for the time-being in force are and are hereby declared to be, with all rights, in or Over the same, or appertaining thereto, the property of the Government and it shall be lawful for the Collector subject to the orders of the State Government to dispose of them in such manner as he may deem fit, or as may be authorised by general rules sanctioned by the Government concerned, subject always to the rights of way, and all other rights of the public or of individuals legally subsisting.
Explanation ;- In this Section "high water mark" means the highest point reached by ordinary spring-tides at any seasons of the year.
(2) Where any property or any right in or over any properties is claimed by or on behalf of the Government or by any person as against the Government, it shall be lawful for the Collector or a Survey Officer, after formal inquiry of which due notice has been given, to pass an order deciding the claim.
(3) Any suit instituted in any Civil Court after the expiration of one year from the date of any order passed under Sub-section (1) or Sub-section (2), or, if one or more appeals have been made against such order within the period of limitation, then from the date of any order passed by the final appellate authority, as determined according to Section 204, shall be dismissed (although limitation has not been set up as a defence) if the suit is brought to set aside such order or if the relief claimed is inconsistent with such order, provided that in the case of an order under Sub-section (2) the plaintiff has had due notice of such order.
(4) Any person shall be deemed to have had due notice of an inquiry or order under this Section if notice thereof has been given in accordance with rules .made in this behalf by the State Government. ... ... ...."
The Deputy Collector, in his order, which starts from page 18 (Annexure ''A''), has found at page 21 of the said order that one Aja Ramji, grandfather of respondent Nos. 1 to 3, who was initially granted occupancy certificate of 96 acres and 28 gunthas, has, subsequently, paid additional amount, and ultimately, in Gharkhed Case No. 11 of 1963-1964, order was passed u/s 44-3 of the Saurashtra Land Reforms Act, and ultimately, the area was changed from 96 acres and 28 gunthas to 105 acres 28 gunthas and accordingly, compensation was also amended. That aspect has been considered by the Deputy Collector in the order. The Deputy Collector has considered the evidence of various witnesses. The Deputy Collector has also considered the statement of Pola Aja dated 16-7-1980 and has also considered the certificate granted in favour of Aja Ramji regarding agricultural field, known as Okhal, which is for 43 acres and 38 gunthas. The Deputy Collector has also considered the cross-examination of the Survey Officer in this behalf. On behalf of the land holders, it was submitted that so far as land, admeasuring 10 acres and 10 gunthas, is concerned, by mistake, it was merged with Government Waste Land of Survey No. 318. On behalf of the land holders, it was submitted before the Deputy Collector that the entire area of 43 acres 38 gunthas, known as Okhal land, was found to be in the possession of Pola Aja, son of Aja Ramji, and one entry was also recorded in the revenue records, which was not cancelled at any point of time. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are the heirs of said Pola Aja, who died during the pendency of the proceedings. On behalf of the said land holders, explanation was also given to the effect that in view of the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act and the land of the respondents was the subject-matter of the provisions of the Act, they have not shown this land in the form which was filled in at the relevant time. However, on behalf of the land holder, it was mentioned that the said fact itself cannot be a conclusive proof for coming to the conclusion that the said land was not in possession of the land holders. It is also argued that since last so many years, this land is in the possession of the ancestors of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3, and therefore, when there is along undisturbed possession, there is a presumption of title in their favour. Under these circumstances, it was submitted that there is an error at the time of carrying out new survey for the purpose of measuring the land in question. The Deputy Collector, after considering the said aspect of the matter, came to the conclusion that it is established that the respondents were in possession of the land in question since so many years and on behalf of the State, no evidence is produced to the effect that such possession is taken away at any point of time by the State. Undisturbed peaceful possession for long passage of time was considered as one of the circumstances in favour of the land holders by the Deputy Collector. The Deputy Collector accordingly found that so far as Kharaba Traverse land Survey No. 318 is concerned, the same is adjoining the land of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3, admeasuring 33.38 gunthas, and by mistake in measurement the land, which is merged with the Kharaba land, is not measured at the relevant time and the Deputy Collector, accordingly, found that so far as land admeasuring 10 acres and 10 gunthas, is concerned, there is substance in the say on behalf of the land holders. Accordingly, the Deputy Collector found that there is a mistake in measurement at the time of carrying out new measurement of Survey No. 318 of Village Raiya and the land, admeasuring 10 acres and 10 gunthas, is part and parcel of the original field, viz., Okhal, which is found as pan and parcel of Survey Nos. 69 to 77/1 as per the new survey. It is found that the said land belongs to Pola Aja.
The Collector, while taking the aforesaid order in suo motu revision, appreciated the evidence again and found that at the time of making new survey, actual measurements are taken and the land of Survey No. 69 was measured as per the actual possession at the relevant time in presence of the father of respondent Nos. 1 to 3. The Collector found that the new survey measurements were taken in the presence of Khatedar, representative of Darbar and the local leaders, and signatures were also taken in Kacha Measurement Book. The Collector found that the Deputy Collector had committed a mistake in not properly weighing or assessing the important piece of evidence of D.I.L.R.
The Collector has also considered the evidence of one Chandulal M. Vyas, the Talati-cum-Mantri, for coming to the conclusion that in the new measurements, the boundaries tally with the possession certificate. It is found that if the possession certificate issued by the Special Mamlatdar in 1955 and the boundaries which are shown as per the new measurement are compared, it shows that on west of ''Okhal'', Survey No. 69 is shown and on west, Government Kharaba Survey No. 318 is shown, and as such, as per the new measurement, the boundaries shown in possession certificate tally. The Collector found that if the Government Kharaba land, admeasuring 10 acres and 10 gunthas, is given to respondent Nos. 1 to 3, the Dhar land shown on west of Survey No. 69 will cease to exist. It is accordingly found by the Collector that the contention of respondent Nos. 1 to 3, prima facie, is not reasonable, and accordingly, it was found that the order of the Deputy Collector is required to be set aside. The Collector has also considered the evidence of Pola Aja. The Collector has considered the entire evidence in great detail and has also considered the fact that in U.L.C. form, which is required to be submitted under the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, the possession of this disputed land is not shown by the original owner.
Considering all these aspects, the Collector, by his order dated 27th April, 1994, set aside the order of the Deputy Collector, holding that the land, admeasuring 10 acres and 10 gunthas, is part and parcel of Survey Nos. 69 and 76. The Collector accordingly declared that the land in question is surveyed and measured as land of Government Traverse Land of Survey No. 318/Paiki and except land admeasuring 2 acres and 3 gunthas, land shown in Khata of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 of Survey No. 69, the entry regarding rest of the land in question, which is shown as traverse paiki Government land out of Survey No. 318/Paiki is to be continued as Government land as it is in the possession of the Government.
The Tribunal, however, came to the conclusion that, initially, occupancy certificate was issued under the provisions of Section 30 of the Saurashtra Land Reforms Act to Aja Ramji for 4 acres and 96 gunthas, which comprised of seven fields. In survey operation, the total area had come to 105 acres and 38 gunthas. The Tribunal found that this survey operation had been given effect in the revenue record by mutation entry. The Tribunal has considered the oral evidence of Pola Aja as well as evidence of his two brothers to the effect that no land has been sold from the field Okhal and the area now said to be under encroachment in the survey operation, was all throughout, held by their forefathers and cultivated by them. The Tribunal has also considered the aspect about change of order regarding 96 acres and 20 gunthas to 105 acres and 38 gunthas, which was done by the Mamlatdar in the year 1964. In Paragraph 9, the Tribunal has considered this aspect in detail and the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the area forming Survey No. 69 was sold away and the theory of land encroachment by the land holders falls flat. The Tribunal has also considered the provisions of Section 44 of the Saurashtra Land Reforms Act. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the Deputy Collector of his own independent judgment, after the earlier remand by the Tribunal, has assessed the evidence on record. The Tribunal has also considered the so-called admission on the part of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 about actual measurement of the land, which is in their possession. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the survey operations are technical in nature and a layman on the subject, would not understand or realise as to the actual area which belongs to him. The Tribunal also found that some fresh evidence was sought to be brought on record at the time of suo motu revision by the Collector, as, at the time of suo motu revision, the Collector, got the land surveyed afresh and he wrote a letter to the D.I.L.R. and for that aspect, letter to the D.I.L.R. was also considered. The Tribunal found that the procedure adopted by the Collector, therefore, was not proper, especially when, while exercising suo motu revisional powers, he could not have undertaken fresh enquiry. The Tribunal also found that there is nothing on the record of the Collector to show that the land holder or his Advocate was informed that a fresh survey was to take place on such day and no intimation was ever given to him to remain present nor was any notice given to him in this behalf.
It has been found by the Tribunal in Paragraph 12 of the order as under :-
"12. Even after the receipt of the said reports of the D.I.L.R. and the Mamlatdar, jointly signed in respect of the various fields, the learned District Collector has not heard the appellants or their Advocate on the result or finding on survey. This shows the arbitrary approach in quasi-judicial proceedings where judicial approach has to be adopted. It comes out from the judgment of the learned District Collector dated 27-4-1994 that the learned District Collector made site inspection along with Circle Officer and the Mamlatdar and that his judgment is based upon such site inspection. Nothing can be found from the Collector''s file that he intimated the land holder or his Advocate about his intended visit for local site inspection. Nothing comes out from the record that he ever asked the land holder or his Advocate to remain present at the time of his visit. Nothing comes out as to on what day, time and date the learned Collector made the site inspection, either from his noting section or from the correspondence section. There is no rojkam of site inspection to be found in the record. Thus, all the things have been done at the back of the land holder and that too without giving him any opportunity for making representation at the time of site inspection, about the report of the site inspection, or about the rojkam of the site inspection. This amounts to highly illegal and irregular procedure, and so, his proceedings, his findings and his judgment and order get vitiated completely and wholly. Learned Advocate Shri P.M. Bhatt had drawn my attention to the judgment of this Tribunal dated 30-1-1962 (copy produced at page 73 of the District Collector''s file). While the facts of the said case decided by the learned ex-President of G.R.T. in the matter before him and the facts in the present case may be different. It is necessary to remember that Section 110 of the Evidence Act provides the benefits of presumption when there is long and unhindered possession. The said judgment of the learned ex-President profusely quotes from the law reports and from the views of learned Judges, like Sir Lawrence Jenkins (C.J.), Mr. Justice Withworth and Mr. Justice Ranade. This judgment has been totally lost sight of by the learned District Collector while it was presented before him. The ratio of that judgment has a good deal of applicability in the instant case also."
Ultimately, the Tribunal set aside the order of the Collector on all the aforesaid grounds as it was found that the order of the Collector is based on presumptions and assumptions and the order of the Deputy Collector was accordingly restored.
Mr. Chauhan, learned A.G.P., could not attack the finding given by the Tribunal and he could not point out as to how the order of the Tribunal is contrary to law or against the evidence on record. The main question which requires consideration is whether it was open for the Collector, while deciding suo motu revision, to re-appreciate the entire aspect of the matter or to conduct fresh survey or to physically verify the site in question. It is not in dispute that the Collector was not exercising appellate powers. As a matter of fact, against the order of the Officer u/s 37(2) of the Code, there is a remedy provided before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. Considering the scheme of the Act, it is doubtful whether any such suo motu revision was competent before the Collector, especially when the Deputy Collector himself was exercising the delegated powers. So far as the proceeding of Section 37 is concerned, it is an absolutely independent proceeding under the Land Revenue Code. Such an appeal is provided as per Section 9 of the Revenue Tribunal Act. Under these circumstances, and considering the scheme of Section 37, even otherwise, assuming that the Collector was justified in exercising revision power, then also, it was not permissible for him to re-appreciate the entire evidence again. The order of the Deputy Collector could not have been nullified by exercising suo motu powers. In that view of the matter, the Collector has transgressed his powers by holding fresh enquiry while exercising the revisional powers. The Collector has re-appreciated the evidence again on its own merit and in great detail. I am not expressing any view whether, on merits, the order of the Collector was justified or not, but the question which requires consideration is whether it was open to him, as if he was deeding a regular appeal against the order of the Deputy Collector, to re-appreciate the evidence on record again. In my view, the procedure adopted by the Collector is, therefore? contrary to law and contrary to the scheme and provisions of Section 37 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code. The Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, ultimately, has considered the said aspect of procedure adopted by the Collector and the G.R.T. has given detailed reasons for setting aside the order of the Collector.
Both the learned Advocates have addressed the Court on the merits of the order passed by the G.R.T.. Under the circumstances, it is not necessary to examine the wider question whether the Collector was competent to revise the order passed by the Deputy Collector in a proceeding u/s 37 of the Code. Even assuming that such revision was maintainable, then also, the Collector could not have re-appreciated the entire evidence again. Under the circumstances, the Tribunal has considered the entire case on merits also and has considered documentary and other evidence on record. The order of the Tribunal, in my view, therefore, is not required to be interfered by this Court in a petition, which is in the nature of Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It cannot be said that the view taken by the Tribunal is not probable or reasonable. This Court is not expected to re-appreciate the entire evidence again. Even otherwise, the Collector, while exercising revisional powers, could not have re-appreciated the entire evidence as if he was deciding an appeal. The procedure adopted by the Collector by examining the site without notice to the land holders, as observed by the Tribunal, also cannot be said to be in accordance with law.
Considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter, in my view, no interference of this Court is required in this petition which is filed by the State Government, challenging the order of the Tribunal. However, as provided by Section 37(3) of the Code, there is a remedy of suit available under the Act. In this view of the matter, it would be open for the State Government to take appropriate civil proceedings, as contemplated by the aforesaid provision, and Mr. Chauhan, learned A.G.P., states that the State Government will file appropriate suit immediately so that the State can establish the title over the land in question by leading appropriate evidence before the competent Civil Court. Mr. Chauhan submitted that the time spent in this litigation is required to be taken into consideration for the purpose of limitation. However, in my view, it is for the State Government to take appropriate proceedings and to take appropriate stand about limitation and to satisfy the competent Civil Court on the question of limitation and to exclude the period for which the proceedings were pending up to this Court. On this point, this Court has not expressed any opinion as it is for the competent Civil Court to examine all these points. It is also clarified that, on the merits of the issue, the observation of the Tribunal may be treated only as regards the provisions of Section 37 of the Code, and ultimately, if any civil proceeding is initiated by the State Government, it is for the competent Civil Court to examine all these points on merits without being influenced by the order passed by the authorities u/s 37 of the Code. Mr. Chauhan states that the State Government will file the appropriate civil suit immediately. However, it is for the State to take appropriate follow up action in this behalf. So far as the order of G.R.T. is concerned, considering the facts and circumstances indicated above, the said order is not required to be interfered with by this Court as this Court is not expected to re-appreciate the evidence in great detail for the purpose of deciding the title between the parties or to find out whether a particular land is part and parcel of Kharaba land Survey No. 318 or not, especially when that part of the evidence is appreciated by the Tribunal and the Deputy Collector, in great detail. In my view, the order of the Tribunal, therefore, cannot be said to be without jurisdiction or contrary to law. In view of the same, the order of the Tribunal is not required to be interfered with and the petition is accordingly dismissed subject to the right of the State Government to challenge the impugned decisions, by which the land in question is held to be in possession and ownership of respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Petition is, therefore, dismissed. Rule is accordingly discharged with no order as to costs.
Since Mr. Chauhan, learned A.G.P., has pointed out that the State may prefer appropriate civil proceedings also by fling civil suit, it is requested by Mr. Chauhan that status quo as on today may be maintained so that in case the State Government files appropriate civil suit, they can pray for necessary interim relief from the Civil Court. In the facts and circumstances of the case, respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are directed to maintain status quo as on today upto 30th November, 2002. It is needless to say that it will be open for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to take all available contentions in law, including the question of limitation, as and when any proceedings are initiated against them by the State Government. At the cost of repetition, it is stated that this Court has not expressed any opinion on any of the issues on merits and it is for the concerned Court to examine the rival contentions of parties on its own merits and in accordance with law.