MEMON KADARBHAI DAUDBHAI Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR MEHSANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have preferred these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, whereby the petitioner challenges the proposed action to be taken by the respondents in removing/ evicting the petitioners from the place of their business.

(2.) The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners has mainly submitted that the petitioners are carrying on their business activities at Kadi town. The Standing Committee of the Kadi Municipality has resolved vide Resolution No. 84 dated 24.2.1976 that the petitioners are offered land at the rent of Rs. 5/-. It is also contended by the learned counsel that the petitioners are having electricity connection given by Gujarat Electricity Board and they are paying electricity bills regularly. Similarly, the petitioners of these petitions are also paying tax to Kadi Municipality. The receipts for payment of municipal tax have been annexed with the memo of the petitions. Similarly, electricity bills have also annexed. However, the petitioners have come to know from the reliable sources that the District Collector, Mahesana has directed the Chief Officer of Kadi Municipality vide communications dated 3rd January, 2004 and 13th January, 2004 to remove all the constructions of the petitioners and of similarly sjtuated other persons. The action of removing structures of the petitioners may commence at any time and therefore, the respondents may be restrained by issuance of writ of this court from removing/evicting the petitioners from the places of their business and they may be heard before taking any action against the petitioners.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the respondent no. 2 has filed an affidavit-in-reply of the Authorised Officer of Kadi Municipality, whereby it is submitted that neither payment of tax nor payment of electricity connection makes construction of the petitioners authorised, if they are otherwise unauthorised. It is also further submitted by the respondent no. 2 that for widening of the road, the land occupied by the petitioner is necessary and hence unauthorised construction and occupation of the land by the petitioner will have to be removed. The internal correspondence hetween Municipality and Collector can never be the basis for issuance of writ under Article 226 of the Constitution. Therefore, the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution may not be invoked by this Court.