Gujarat High Court
Sarpanchshri vs Collector on 29 July, 2010
Author: M.R. Shah
Bench: M.R. Shah
Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/3809/2010 3/ 6 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 3809 of 2010
=========================================================
SARPANCHSHRI
- Petitioner(s)
Versus
COLLECTOR
& 2 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR
PF ADHVARYU for
Petitioner(s) : 1,MR VICKY B MEHTA for Petitioner(s) : 1,
MS.
TRUSHA PATEL, AGP for Respondent(s) : 1,
None for Respondent(s) :
2 - 3.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
Date
: 29/07/2010
ORAL
ORDER
1. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for an appropriate writ, direction and order quashing and setting aside the impugned order passed by the Collector, Sabarkantha dated 2.4.2003 in resuming the gaucher land in question from the management of petitioner Varthu Gram Panchayat.
2. The management of the gaucher land in question was given to the Varthu Gram Panchayat and it was found that Panchayat has failed to protect the gaucher land and remove the unauthorized encroachment on the said government gaucher land, after giving an opportunity and issuing show cause notices to the Gram Panchayat, by order dated 2.4.2003, Collector, Sabarkantha has passed an order to resume the land to the State Government. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the Collector, Sabarkantha dated 2.4.2003 in resuming the gaucher land in question from the management of the Panchayat, petitioner preferred revision application before the Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, State of Gujarat, which was not entertained on the ground that revision application against the order passed by the Collector, Sabarkantha is not maintainable. It appears that thereafter the petitioner approached the State Government by way of revision application which also not entertained by the State Government on the ground that revision application before the State Government against the order passed by the Collector, Sabarkantha is not maintainable. Hence, petitioner has preferred the present Special Civil Application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order passed by the Collector, Sabarkantha dated 2.4.2003.
3. Shri Vicky Mehta, learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that no reasonable opportunity has been given to the Panchayat before resuming the land in question. It is further submitted that while passing the impugned order dated 2.4.2003, the Collector, Sabarkantha has not properly applied the mind and use of the gaucher land by the village people i.e. constructing or using the some land as vada land by the village people for the purpose of their cattles. He has relied upon the decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Nabipur Gram Panchayat Vs. State of Gujarat reported in AIR 1995 Guj 52. Therefore, it is requested to quash and set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the Collector.
4. Petition is opposed by Ms. Trusha Patel, learned AGP. It is submitted that as such the gaucher land in question belongs to the State Government and it was given to the Panchayat only for the purpose of administration and management and as it was found that Panchayat has failed to protect the gaucher land and Panchayat failed to remove the encroachment on the gaucher land, the Collector, Sabarkantha is justified in resuming the land back to the State Government. It is submitted that ample opportunity was given to the Panchayat and three different notices were issued however Panchayat did not appear before the Collector and thereafter after giving the reasonable opportunity impugned order has been passed, which cannot be said to be in any way in breach of principles of natural justice and / or illegal. She has relied upon the decision of the learned Single Judge in the case of Munund Gram Panchayat Vs. State of Gujarat and Others reported in 1992(1) GLH 19 as well as Division Bench of this Court in the case of Arjanbhai N. Dedia Vs. Madhubhai N. Administrator Gram Sevak and others reported in 1997 (1) GLH 650. By making above submission and relying upon the aforesaid decisions, it is requested to dismiss the present Special Civil Application.
5. Heard the learned advocates for the parties at length. It is not in dispute that the gaucher land in question belongs to the State Government and it was given to the Panchayat only for the purpose of administration and management. From the order passed by the Collector, Sabarkantha it appears that there were encroachment on the gaucher land and Panchayat has failed to protect the gaucher land and to remove the encroachment on the gaucher land. Considering the above and after giving reasonable opportunity, Collector passed the impugned order resuming the land back to the State Government by observing that Panchayat has failed to protect the gaucher land, by not removing the encroachment on the gaucher land. Considering the above, it cannot be said that the impugned order passed by the Collector to resume the gaucher land back to the State Government is in any way illegal or arbitrary which calls for the interference of this Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The aforesaid view is fortified by the decision of the Division Bench in the case of Arjanbhai N. Dedia (supra) and the decision of the learned Single Judge in case of Munund Gram Panchayat (supra).
6. Now, so far as the contention on behalf of the petitioner that reasonable opportunity has not been given to the petitioner and the impugned order is in breach of of principles of natural justice is concerned, the same has no substance. Before passing the impugned order, Collector, Sabarkantha issued three notices, which were never responded by the petitioner Panchayat. Only thereafter and considering the report submitted by the Mamlatdar, impugned order has been passed which cannot be said to be in breach of principles of natural justice.
7. Now, so far as reliance placed upon the decision of the learned Single Judge in the case of Nabipur Gram Panchayat (supra) is concerned, the same would not be applicable to the facts of the present case. In the present case, considering the order passed by the Collector, Sabarkantha it cannot be said that the Collector, Sabarkantha has not applied mind at all. It is sought to be contended on the behalf of the petitioner that the some portion of the land was used by the village people as vada land for the purpose of keeping their cattles. However, it is to be noted that those respective village people have encroached upon the government land as vada land of their own use. Therefore, Panchayat has failed to remove the encroachment made by other village people may be for the purpose of vada land.
8. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and aforesaid decisions of the Division Bench as well as learned Single Judge in the case of Arjanbhai N. Dedia (supra) and Munund Gram Panchayat (supra), there is no substance in the present petition, which deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.
(M.R.SHAH, J.) kaushik Top