DAHYABHAI CHHAGANBHAI PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Mr. R.P. Solanki, learned A.G.P. waives service of Rule on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2. Mr. BB Desai, learned counsel waives service of Rule on behalf of respondent No. 4.

(2.) The petitioner are said to be members of the Gram Committee specially constituted for the purpose of representing their matter pertaining to the plots of land allotted by the Government under the scheme of providing land for landless laboures under the Resolution of Pal Gram Panchayat dated 27.6.1989. It is stated that the Government of Gujarat introduced a scheme for providing small plots of land admeasuring 100 sq. yds. each to the landless labourers for the purpose of constructing small houses for dwelling purpose. A Committee was also constituted to scrutinise the applications. After scrutinising all the applications, the Committee prepared a final list consisting of names of 190 persons. It is also stated that respondent No. 3- Gram Panchayat of Village Pal passed a Resolution dated 30th August, 1986 to the effect that land of Block Nos. 397 and 398 bearing Revenue Survey Nos. 597 and 598 admeasuring about 13,000 sq. metres will suffice the purpose as it falls within the category of Government Gauchar land. It is also stated that respondent No. 4- Taluka Develpment Officer forwarded the complete papers along with the proposal to the Collector of Surat for necessary sanction and approval. The Collector enquired with the authorities of Surat Urban Development Authority ('SUDA' for short) regarding the same. SUDA did not recommend allotment of land bearing survey Nos. 597 and 598, as it was falling within agricultural zone and opined that any land falling in an agricultural zone cannot be allotted for the purpose of construction. In view of the opinion expressed by the SUDA, the Collector refused to accept the recommendation made by the Gram Panchayat. The Collector accordingly directed the Gram Panchayat to immediately remove the encroachment made over the said land. It is alleged that suddenly on 16.6.1993, without prior notice or without affording any opportunity, under the orders of the Collector, a demolition drive the orders of the Collector, a demolition drive was launched to remove them from the plots.

(3.) Mr. J.B. Pardiwala, learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioner were put in possession over theplot in pursuance of resolution of the Panchayat and as such their possession of the plot cannot be said to be that of a trespasser, simply because the Collector did not approve the resolution. The learned counsel further contends that in any case, the respondents were required to adopt a reasonable, fair and just procedure. The learned counsel places reliance on a decision of this Court in Nehru Marg Cabin Association vs. Modasa Nagar Palika, reported in 1988 (1) GLR 441.