MALDEV SAMARTH PARMAR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Advocate Mr. B. M. Mangukiya for the petitioners. He submits that order/notice dated 23.12.2020 was served upon the petitioners and other identically situated persons on 24.12.2020 at 6.00 p.m. in the evening. The time given to vacate the land in question is of 3 days only and therefore, learned Advocate Mr. Mangukiya apprehends that at any point of time now the petitioners and other identically situated persons will be removed from the land in question. Mr. Mangukiya further submits that on approaching the authority, the authority has in turn told the petitioners that in any case if no stay order from the Hon'ble High Court is produced before them by Monday evening, they will be dispossessed on very next day.

(2.) This Court is aware of the fact that all the proceedings under section 61 of the Land Revenue Code were undertaken by giving individual notice and by giving individual hearing to each of the petitioner, who also had engaged an advocate and appeared through him, and as the order suggests that the order/notice dated 23.12.2020 has already been passed individually in respect of each of the petitioners and other identically situated persons separately, for whom cause has been agitated by the petitioners, being the persons directly affected, whether this petition could be termed as PIL or not, is a question to be determined.

(3.) However, noticing the fact that the petitioners belonging to lower strata of the society and considering the fact that since last more than 20 years they have allegedly encroached upon the land in question, vide notice dated 23.12.2020, they have been asked to vacate the land within a period of 3 days. Mr. Mangukiya also submits that in case, if their case for alternative accommodation is considered by the authority, they have no objection to vacate the land in question within reasonable time. Since, learned Advocate Mr. Mangukiya, on instructions, has stated that they do not mind to vacate the land in question if alternative accommodation is provided. This Court without entering into the technicalities whether this petition could be termed as PIL or not, and also considering the fact that more than 100 families are sought to be dispossessed from the land in question, at this juncture, deems it proper to issue notice to the respondents keeping the question of maintainability of this petition as PIL open.