GITABEN Vs. THE STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE . Mr. Udit D. Mehta, learned Assistant Government Pleader, waives service of notice of Rule for respondent No. 1 and Mr. H.S. Munshaw, learned advocate, waives service of notice of Rule for respondent No. 2.

(2.) THE challenge in this petition preferred under Articles -226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is to the impugned order dated 18.10.2014, passed by respondent No. 2, District Development Officer and the order dated 16.12.2014, passed by respondent No. 1, Additional Development Commissioner, whereby the order of respondent No. 2, removing the petitioner as Sarpanch of Kadadara Gram Panchayat, has been confirmed.

(3.) MR . Vijay H. Patel, learned advocate for H.L. Patel Advocates, on behalf of the petitioner, has submitted that the impugned orders passed by respondents Nos. 2 and 1 deserve to be quashed and set aside, as the said authorities ought to have taken into consideration that there is a Report of the Circle Inspector of the District Panchayat, Gandhinagar, dated 26.08.2013, stating that the seventeen encroachments that have been registered in the Encroachment Register have been made during different periods of time and are required to be removed. Some of the encroachments have been made during a period of five to ten years, even before the petitioner assumed the office of Sarpanch. Therefore, she alone, cannot be held responsible for them.