TIMBANAMUVADA GRAM PANCHAYAT Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the present petition, the petitioner-Timbanamuvada Gram Panchayat has challenged orders dated 6th May, 1992, 19th May, 1992 and 11th March, 1993 passed by the Collector by which different parcels of lands came to be granted to the respondent No. 4.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner-Panchayat and to which there is no serious dispute that earlier Village Panchayats of Padal and Timbanamuvada formed a group Gram Panchayat. However, subsequently on account of growth of both these villages, the two Village Panchayats were bifurcated by notification dated 1st June, 1985. Thus, with effect from 1st June, 1985, two separate Panchayats, one for village Padal and another for village Timbanamuvada came into existence. The petitioner-Panchayat is opposing the grant of land in favour of the respondent No. 4 by the Collector. The respondent No. 4 which is an educational trust and which is running an 'Ashram Shala' has requested for grant of land to the Collector for extension of its existing activities. By an order dated 6th May, 1992, the Collector decided to grant to the respondent No. 4, 10 Are and 28 Sq.mtrs. of land forming part of Survey No. 639. Though, the order dated 6th May, 1992 refers to the land as one forming part of Survey No. 639 of village Padal, there is some controversy with respect to this aspect of the matter to which reference shall be made at a later stage. The grant of land was on payment of token fee of Re. 1 per year. There is no dispute about the fact that the land which was granted to the respondent No. 4 was part of gouchar land so earmarked and assigned in the Revenue records. Similarly, by another order dated 19th May, 1992, Collector decided to grant further land admeasuring 160 Sq.mtrs from the same Survey No. 639 paikee in favour of Respondent No. 4. This grant was however, upon payment of Rs. 6080/- calculated at the rate of Rs. 38/- per Sq.mtr. and was meant to be Market Price of lands in question. By yet another order dated 11th March, 1993, the Collector assigned the land admeasuring 11553 Sq.mtrs. to the respondent No. 4 from the said Survey No. 639. his grant was also without charging any amount from the respondent No. 4. Thus, by three different orders, the Collector, Kheda granted a total of approximately three acres of land in favour of the respondent No. 4 out of Survey No. 639 which land was otherwise earmarked for gouchar land of the village.

(3.) The petitioner-Panchayat has challenged the above-mentioned orders passed by the Collector, Kheda on various grounds. It is contended that there are number of Schools in the near vicinity of the School which is proposed to be set up by the respondent No. 4. It is therefore, contended that there is no requirement of an additional School. It is contended that Shri Trikambhai Parmar is the sole person behind the respondent No. 4 trust and the land is likely to be misused for his personal purpose if granted. There are allegations of mala fides also made in the petition. It is contended that the orders passed by the Collector was without hearing the petitioner-Panchayat, and was therefore, opposed to provisions of Sec. 96(4) of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1961. It is contended that the Collector could not have granted the lands in favour of the respondent No. 4 without resuming the same as the land was allotted to Panchayat and without resumption by the Government, the same cannot be disp sed of in any manner. It is additionally contended that the lands which are granted to the respondent No. 4 were part of gouchar land of the Village Panchayat; that people of the village had a valuable right of grazing their cattle on such gouchar land. Such rights could not have been extinguished without proper inquiry', without hearing the petitioner-Panchayat and without considering the adequacy or otherwise 'of the availability of the gouchar land. In this regard, the petitioner has contended that at the relevant time there were as many as 1022 cattle in the Panchayat and the total area of gouchar land available with the Panchayat was inadequate to sustain its cattle population. It is pointed out that out of the total area of 72-26 acres assigned to the petitioner-Panchayat for gouchar land, a total of 32 acres and 24 gunthas of land has already been acquired by the Government for Narmada Canal. Thus, approximately 40 acres of land will be available with the petitioner-Panchayat as gouchar land. It is therefore, contended that considering the large number of cattle in the village, the gouchar land was inadequate and could not have been further diminished by granting any part of the land in favour of a private trust. In support of his contention, learned Advocate for the petitioner relied upon the decision of learned single Judge of this Court in the case of Kanji Haridas Goradia & Anr. v. State of Gujarat & Anr., reported in 1994 (1) GLR 375 in which the learned single Judge of this High Court held that though the Government has powers to resume any land vested in the Panchayat, the Panchayat is a vitally interested party and the land which is vested in the Gram Panchayat for the purpose of gouchar land, if is to be resumed from the Panchayat, the Panchayat should be given an opportunity of hearing.