MOHAMAD ALI ABRAHIM LOHAR Vs. GRAM PANCHAYAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order passed by the City Survey Superintendent at Dhanera (respondent No. 2 herein) on 14th March 1985 as also the order passed by the Collector of Banaskantha at Palanpur (respondent No. 3 herein) on 21st April 1986 are under challenge in this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. By his impugned order, respondent No. 2 has ordered eviction of the petitioner from the encroached area and directed him to pay additional assessment in the sum of Rs. 20 and local fund in the sum of Rs. 20 and education cess in the sum of Rs. 5 and the fine of Rs. 100. By his impugned order, respondent No. 3 has refused to regularise the encroachment made by the petitioner to the extent of 44 square meters in one parcel of land bearing sheet No. 30 to the West of Survey No. 2457 situated at Dhanera (the disputed land for convenience).

(2.) The facts giving rise to this petition move in a narrow compass. The petitioner claims to be the tenant of the disputed land through the gram panchayat at Dhanera (respondent No. 1 herein). He is carrying on his business of blacksmith therein. It however appeared to the concerned authority that he had encroached upon that land. He thereupon applied to respondent No. 2 for its allotment on permanent basis. It appears that the Sarpanch of respondent No. 1-panchayat recommended allotment of the disputed land in favour of the petitioner by addressing one communication on 23rd/24th April 1984 to respondent No. 2 herein. Its copy is at Annexure-F to this petition. By his order passed on 14th March 1985, respondent No. 2 found that the petitioner had encroached upon the land in question and he therefore, ordered his eviction therefrom and payment of the amounts as aforesaid. Its copy is at Annexure-G to this petition. It appears that the petitioner had also applied for regularisation of his encroachment by his application of 2nd March 1984. By his order passed on 21st April 1986, respondent No. 3 rejected that application. Its copy is at Annexure-J to this petition. The aggrieved petitioner has thereupon approached this Court by means of this petition under art. 226 of the Constitution of India for questioning the correctness of the orders at Annexures G and J to this petition.

(3.) According to learned Advocate Kum. Shah for the petitioner, respondent No. 2 was not justified in coming to the conclusion that the petitioner had encroached upon the land in view of the fact that the petitioner had taken it on lease from respondent No. 1 panchayat. She has invited my attention to copies of rent receipts at Annexures A to D to this petition. It transpires therefrom that the petitioner is on the disputed land at least from 1st April 1967. That becomes clear from the recommendatory letter issued by the sarpanch of respondent No. 1-panchayat at Annexure F to this petition. The grievance voiced by Kum. Shah for the petitioner is to the effect that respondent No. 2 has not taken this evidence into consideration.