VISHNUBHAI HARINARAYAN RANA Vs. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this group of 16 petitions, common questions are involved and, therefore, they are heard together and resultantly they are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) The short question requiring our consideration and adjudication in this group is, as to whether the petitioners, who are running different types of business in shops upon the land of the respondent, have any legal right and whether they can claim protection of the constitutional, equitable, plenary, discretionary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or not, while challenging the impugned notice issued by the respondent for removal of unauthorised construction and encroachment, is positively in the negative for the reasons behest to add herein below.

(3.) After having given our anxious thoughts and consideration to the rival submissions raised before us and the factual profile from the record, it is evident that the petitioners are directed to vacate or remove unauthorised encroachment within a period of 30 days, pursuant to the notice issued by the respondent, as by passage of time, the petitioners have not voluntarily removed the unauthorised encroachment and construction on the land belonging to the respondent authority.