NABIPUR GRAM PANCHAYAT Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner No. 1 - Nabipur Gram Panchayat by itself and through petitioner No. 2, its Sarpanch, have challenged the resolution of the Executive Committee of Nabipur Taluka Panchayat passed on 3-12-1981 for making construction of huts in the grazing land (Gauchar land) of village Nabipur for providing residence to the village people under the Central Government's rehabilitation scheme (Annexure C) and the order dated 5-4-1982 passed by the learned Collector, Bharuch for resuming such land from the grazing land (Gauchar land) of village Nabipur, for such rehabilitation.

(2.) Brief facts in so far as the case of the petitioners is concerned are: Nabipur village stood inhabited by about 4,000 people belonging to various creeds including Adivasis and Harijans and other economically backward persons. Most of the village population depends upon agriculture. Land bearing survey No. 1048 in the outskirt of village Nabipur has been used as grazing land from times immemorial. The same is meant for grazing for more than 1100 cattle heads. In compliance of the 20 Points Programme of the Government, the Taluka Development Officer wrote a letter to the petitioner - Nabipur Gram Panchayat to mutate the aforesaid grazing land into Gamtal (Gharthal) land with a view to plotting the same for landless persons. On receipt of the letter, the petitioner Panchayat invited objections from the members of the public as per public notice and prclamation dated 20-11-1981. Number of village people including the people belonging to weaker section for which Gauchar land was sought to be set apart for rehabilitation, raised objections protesting to the proposed action of the Government to convert the grazing land into Gamtal land for the purpose of rehabilitation thereof by the landless persons. On 24-11-1981 Social Justice Committee held a meeting where the question was considered and it was resolved that there was a shortage of land for grazing and if from the existing grazing land, some portion was set apart for rehabilitation, the problem of grazing would be aggravated. It was resolved that if the Government wanted to set apart the land for landless persons some other land should be found out. It is the say of the petitioners that the persons who formed Social Justice Committee represented the Adivasis and other backward classes for whom the Government wanted the land to be set apart. In spite of such objections on the part of the petitioner - Gram Panchayat, the Executive Committee of the Taluka Panchayat passed the impugned resolution dated 3-12-1981. The petitioner thereupon submitted an appeal before the District Panchayat and the District Panchayat rejected the petitioner's appeal as per the impugned order dated 5-4-1982 passed by the learned Collector (Annexure D). A Review Application was also preferred to the same authority, but it met with the same fate on 30/09/1982. The petitioners are, therefore, before this Court as aforesaid.

(3.) On behalf of the respondents, the Collector, Bharuch has filed affidavit-in-reply. It has been asserted that the petitioners have challenged the validity of the order dated 5-4-1982 whereby Gauchar land admeasuring 18 acres 12 gunthas out of survey No.1048 situated in the outskirt of Nabipur village was resumed under the provisions of Sec. 96(4) of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1961. It is the say of the respondents that as per the policy of the Government persons of certain classes, who do not have residential houses of their own, are to be provided with the land for construction of residential houses. In order to effectuate such purpose it was thought fit to resume the land in question. According to the say of the respondents, it was in public interest and in pursuance of the Government policy that it was decided to resume the land in question to provide shelter to needy and homeless persons and that being a more important public purpose than grazing, it was thought fit to resume the land in question. According to the say of the respondents efforts were made to see if any other land was available for granting the same to homeless persons but since no other land was available, order for resumption of the land in question was passed. According to the respondents, the figures supplied by the Taluka Development Officer, Bharuch revealed that there were only 700 cattle heads to be provided with grazing. It is also asserted that although it was not necessary for considering the representation and the objection of the village panchayat, the respondent No. 2 considered such objections and passed the impugned order. The petition is, therefore, sought to be dismissed.