Gujarat High Court
Mayursinh @ Mayurdhwajsinh ... vs District Collector & 7....Opponent(S) on 2 March, 2016
Author: Anant S. Dave
Bench: R.Subhash Reddy, Anant S. Dave
C/WPPIL/188/2014 ORDER
WRIT PETITION (PIL) NO. 188 of 2014
================================================================
MAYURSINH @ MAYURDHWAJSINH BAHADURSINH JADEJA....Applicant(s)
Versus
DISTRICT COLLECTOR & 7....Opponent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR AB GATESHANIYA, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR DHAWAN JAYSWAL AGP for the Opponent(s) Nos. 1, 8
MR HS MUNSHAW, ADVOCATE for the Opponent(s) No. 4
MR MIHIR JOSHI SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH MR VIMAL M PATEL,
ADVOCATE for the Opponent(s) No. 7
===========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. R.SUBHASH
REDDY
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE
Date : 02/03/2016
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE) 1 This petition [Public Interest Litigation] is preferred by the petitioner seeking direction against the respondent Nos.1 to 4 to demolish the construction made by respondent No.7 over the Government vest lands situated on [i] the southern side of land bearing revenue survey No.485/4 and 485/5 and [ii] the northern side of land bearing revenue survey No.500 and 502/1 of Village Khedoi [Moti Khedoi].
2 According to the petitioner, after
Page 1 of 5
HC-NIC Page 1 of 5 Created On Sat Mar 05 01:46:05 IST 2016
C/WPPIL/188/2014 ORDER
obtaining information from the office of the Collector, Bhuj and upon verification of revenue record of concerned survey numbers, he approached the authority whereby it was specifically pointed out that there is an encroachment over the Government land and no action has been taken and, therefore, the petitioner constrained to file this writ petition [PIL] under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
3 Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied on decision of this Court as well as Apex Court about duty cast upon the Government authorities to remove encroachment lying on the Government land. Along with the petition, the petitioner has enclosed various revenue records showing status of the land in question and contention is also raised about Evacuee Property Occupied.
4 Learned counsel for the petitioner would further contend that respondent No.7 has carried out construction on the Government vest land and the land which was forming part of the evacuee property for which no certificate under Section 89 of The Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 was obtained. The manner in which the land is acquired by respondent No.7 is also doubtful and further authorities have acted in collusion with respondent No.7 and even part of the Government vest land and gaucher land also Page 2 of 5 HC-NIC Page 2 of 5 Created On Sat Mar 05 01:46:05 IST 2016 C/WPPIL/188/2014 ORDER sold to the respondent No.7. It is submitted that when encroachment is revealed as per affidavit filed by competent authorities, construction carried out over it needs to be demolished and even no regularization be permitted for such encroachment.
5 The respondent No.7 has filed affidavit in reply denying all allegations levelled by the petitioner and it is stated that the petitioner has some inimical terms with the Labour Contractor of the respondent company and with a view to take revenge, this Public Interest Litigation is filed. The respondent No.7 company has invested more than 500 crores towards purchase and installation of plant and machinery and land for setting up of industry manufacturing Saw pipes, which are used in Oil and Natural Gas industry and now more than 1300 and 1500 workers are there on pay roles of the company. This venture of respondent No.7 is pursuant to certain offers made by the Central Government as well as State Government to establish industries after devastating earthquake which took place in the year 2001. It is further submitted that all procedures have been followed and no irregularity or illegality is committed by the respondent No.7 while purchasing the land. That even transaction with private parties are also undertaken in accordance with law. There is no breach of even provisions of The Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Page 3 of 5 HC-NIC Page 3 of 5 Created On Sat Mar 05 01:46:05 IST 2016 C/WPPIL/188/2014 ORDER Lands Act, 1948 and The Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 and The Evacuee Interest (Separation) Act, 1951 are repealed and at the relevant point of time also no inquiry was undertaken under the above Act. It is, therefore, submitted that the petition deserves to be dismissed.
6 Mr. Mihir Joshi, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondent No.7 submits that encroachment, if any, noticed by the office of the District Collector after measurement undertaken by DILR, respondent No.7 would like to pursue the concerned authority if regularization of such encroachment is permissible in accordance with law and that out of more than one lakh square meters of land purchased by the respondent No.7, some anomaly at the periphery can be regularized.
7 The additional affidavit dated 16.02.2016 filed by Shri Mitesh Prabhulal Pandya, Deputy Collector, Anjar, reveals that with regard to subject land, DILR had carried out measurement on 22.01.2016 wherein it is discovered that Government land admeasuring 3883 square meters has been encroached upon by respondent No.7. The above affidavit is accompanied by measurement carried out by DILR as shown in the map.
8 At this juncture, we find that the
Page 4 of 5
HC-NIC Page 4 of 5 Created On Sat Mar 05 01:46:05 IST 2016
C/WPPIL/188/2014 ORDER
encroachment of 3883 square meters of the Government land is done by the respondent No.7 for which notices are already issued to the authorized officer of respondent No.7 on 25.01.2016 and specific directions have been issued that encroachment is to be removed at the cost of the company, failing which the Government would take appropriate action to remove such encroachment.
9 In view of the above, no further order is required to be passed by this Court in this Writ Petition [PIL]. However, this order will not come in the way of respondent No.7 to approach the concerned authority for regularization of such encroachment, if so permissible in accordance with law.
10 With the aforesaid, this petitioner stands disposed of.
Notice discharged. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
(R. SUBHASH REDDY, CJ) (ANANT S.DAVE, J.) pvv Page 5 of 5 HC-NIC Page 5 of 5 Created On Sat Mar 05 01:46:05 IST 2016