BHIKHABHAI RAJABHAI VEGDA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for an appropriate writ, order and/or direction, quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 18/08/2009 passed by the Additional Development Commissioner, State of Gujarat in Appeal No. 46 of 2009 in dismissing the same and confirming the order dated 27/02/2009 passed by District Development Officer, Rajkot by which the petitioner has been removed from the post of Deputy Sarpanch under Section 57 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act,1993 on the ground that the petitioner has encroached upon Gauchar land.

(2.) THE petitioner was served with show cause notice by District Development Officer, Rajkot under Section 57 (1) of the Gujarat Panchayats Act,1993 (hereinafter referred to as "the Panchayats Act") and the petitioner was called upon to show cause as to why the petitioner should not be removed from the post of Deputy Sarpanch as the petitioner has misused his official position and the petitioner has encroached upon the Gauchar land. The petitioner replied to the same and it appears from the order passed by the District Development Officer, Rajkot that even the petitioner admitted having encroached upon the Gauchar land and prayed for regularisation upon Gauchar land on payment of penalty. Thereafter, District Development Officer, Rajkot passed order dated 27/02/2009 removing the petitioner from the post of Deputy Sarpanch under Section 57 of the Panchayats Act holding that the charge of encroaching Gauchar land proved. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the District Development Officer, Rajkot dated 27/02/2009 removing the petitioner from the post of Deputy Sarpanch, the petitioner preferred Appeal before Additional Development Commissioner, State of Gujarat and the Additional Development Commissioner, State of Gujarat vide order dated 18/08/2009 dismissed the said Appeal and confirmed the order removing the petitioner from the post of Deputy Sarpanch. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid two orders, the petitioner has preferred the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) MR. DHAVAL Vakil, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has vehemently submitted that there are other village people also, who are cultivating the Gauchar land. Therefore being Deputy Sarpanch the petitioner should not be punished and no special treatment is to be given to the petitioner. It is also further submitted that infact father of the petitioner was cultivating land in question and even report submitted by Taluka Development Officer on the basis of which the process was initiated, was not supplied to the petitioner and even the petitioner made statement before Talati-cum-Mantri to remove the encroachment, if any. Therefore, it is submitted that both the authorities below have materially erred in removing the petitioner from the post of Deputy Sarpanch.