KOSAMBA GRAM PANCHAYAT Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner Gram Panchayat has, in this petition, challenged the Resolution of the State of Gujarat, dated 9.9.1996 at Annexure "N" to the petition, and the consequential order made by the respondent No.4 Collector on 31.12.1996 at Annexure "P" to the petition, by which the respondent No.7, which is a religious institution, was granted land admeasuring 9,332 sq.meters from survey No.110 part of village Kosamba in Valsad District, by regularising the encroachment on the land in question. The challenge against these orders is made on the ground that they are issued in violation of the provisions of Sections 37, 38, 61 and 62 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code and Rule 42 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Rules, 1972, and that they also violate the Coastal Regulation Zone Notification issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forests on 1 9/02/1991, as amended on 9.7.1997 as well as the Coastal Zone Management Plan of Gujarat, framed under Section 3(2)(v) of the Environment Protection Act, 1986, on 27th September, 1997. The impugned orders are also challenged on the ground that they violate the Government Resolution dated 30/01/1989 and the Notifications of the Government of India issued in 1982, as also the provisions of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, as well as the Constitutional provisions of Articles 14, 19, 21, 38, 48A and 51A. A direction is sought on the respondent authorities to take over the said land from the respondent No.7 and restore it to its original natural condition. A direction is also sought on the respondent authorities to hand over the land in question to the petitioner Gram Panchayat for its administration and public use and to allow the people of the village to put it to its original use. A further direction is sought on the respondent No.7 institution to pay the cost for the restitution of environment and ecology of the land in question and to pay `pollution fines'. In the alternative, a direction is sought on the State authorities to `de-regularise' the encroachment and the unauthorised structures thereon and transfer and alienate the same in favour of the petitioner Gram Panchayat for its use. Prayer for appointment of an expert committee to study the issue and placing its report before the High Court for guiding the High Court, was also made in the petition.

(2.) By its resolution dated 9.9.1996, the State Government regularised the encroachment of 9,332 sq.meters of land which was occupied by the respondent No.7 - Bochasanwasi Shri Akshar Purushottam Sanstha. According to the petitioner, the encroachment was made by the respondent No.7 by constructing thereon without any authority, the Swaminarayan temple, air-condition Sant Avas, a huge `Sabha Khand', kitchen, store-rooms, library, garrage and staff quarters within 500 meters of High Tide Line, particularly within 200 meters of High Tide Line which is `No development zone', in Revenue Survey No.110 of Kosamba village, which is situated on the sea-coast. According to the petitioner, the area lies between the sea-coast of Arabian sea and the creek known as Vanki river.

(3.) We have narrated in detail the nature of controversy raised by the petitioner Panchayat to point out that this is not a simple case filed only for protecting the coastal line and forest environment or ecology or beauty of the sea-shore, but its roots lie in the disputes that arose when in the land which was handed over to the respondent No. 7 in 1990 by the village Gram Sabha, the road came to be obstructed in February, 1996 and the followers of the respondent No.7 and the non-followers of the denomination in the village filed complaints and counter complaints. Though for a long period the activities of the respondent No.7 were going on after 1990, there was hardly any dispute and it was only when the road came to be obstructed that all the possible contentions were sought to be raised by the petitioner Panchayat. It is significant to note that in the communication dated 5th Feb. 1996 of the Panchayat, addressed to the Collector, it was specifically stated that the land was `willingly and with great love' given by the Panchayat and the leaders of the village to the Swaminarayan sect for the purpose of the temple and that only the right over the original public road was reserved. The grievance at that stage was that the very people who were invited by the Panchayat and the village people were now obstructing the road and stopping them from lighting holi, which hurt the feelings of the village people. It was specifically stated in that communication that they were not against the construction of the temple. As noted above, there was a sudden change in the attitude of the petitioner Panchayat after Feb. 1996 and it soon took up the contention that the entire occupation of the land by the respondent No.7 was unauthorised and that it should be ordered to be handed over back to the Panchayat.