PRANJIVANBHAI BHUDARBHAI SARPANCH Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE. Mr. Umang Oza, learned AGP waives service of notice of Rule for respondent No. 1 and Mr. Munshaw, learned Counsel for respondent No. 2. The matter is finally heard today.

(2.) THE short facts of the case appear to be that one lady Champaben Kanjibhai Bokhani, belonging to Scheduled Caste had encroached over the land reserved for grazing for cattle (hereinafter referred to as 'the Gauchar land') and in the year 1997, the Panchayat had decided to remove the encroachment made by her and her family members. The notice was also given to her under the Gujarat Panchayat Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' ). Ultimately, it appears that the action was taken by the petitioner in capacity as the Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch, as the case may be, for removal of the encroachment made by the aforesaid Champaben (hereinafter referred to as 'the affected person/encroacher/complainant' ). It deserves to be recorded that the Panchayat was directed by the higher authority to take action for removal of the encroachment and the action was taken accordingly for such purpose.

(3.) IT appears that the said Champaben filed complaint before the District Social Welfare Officer for harassment to her as she is belonging to backward class (Dalit ). The District Social Welfare Officer for backward class inquired into the matter and did find that the dispute arose because of the cultivation by Champaben over the land, which was encroached by her and her neighbour. However, there is harassment found of social boycott, etc. , by certain residents of the village and, therefore, it was observed by the said Officer that it is the responsibility of the Sarpanch to ensure that there is no harassment to the family of Dalits and action is required to be taken. The aforesaid report by the District Social Welfare Officer of the backward class was made as the basis for the initiation of the action against the petitioners for removal as the Sarpanch and/or Upa-Sarpanch, as the case may be, and ultimately order came to be passed by the District Development Officer for removal. The matter was carried in appeal by the petitioners before the Additional Development Commissioner and the appeals have been dismissed. It is under these circumstances, the petitioners have approached this Court by the present petition.