TURAK JAMAT Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has a chequered history. Suffice to say that the petitioner has been requesting for regularization of its admittedly unauthorized occupation of public land admesuring 36 gunthas at Veraval. The petitioner claims to have occupied the land inadvertently and therefore claims the benefit of Government policy to regularize such occupation under such circumstances. Earlier, the Deputy Collector had ordered such regularization, however, upon further appeal, remands and revision, finally the impugned order dated 2. 7. 91 came to be passed by the Additional Chief Secretary, (Appeals), Revenue Department, Government of Gujarat. By the said order, the Additional Secretary, set aside the orders passed by the revenue authorities directing regularization of occupation of the petitioner of the disputed land.

(2.) IN the impugned order, it is recorded that the occupation cannot be stated to be inadvertently made by the petitioner. It is further recorded that on the land in question, there is no development which cannot be removed easily. Except for covering the land with compound wall, there is little other development thereon. If encroachment is removed no loss would be caused to the petitioner. Since encroachment was intentional, same could not have been regularized.

(3.) HAVING heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties, I do not find that the order suffers from any illegality. Though learned advocate Shri Shastri for the petitioner submitted that the earlier order passed by the Deputy Collector to regularize the encroachment order had become final upon reading the first part of the impugned order itself, it becomes clear that it was that order of the Deputy Collector dated 9. 9. 81 which was carried in further appeal and revision which gave rise to the impugned order dated 2. 7. 91. The order of the Deputy Collector, therefore had not achieved finality.