Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Gujarat High Court

Desai (Rabari) Ratanbhai Ramjibhai vs State Of Gujarat & 3 on 19 August, 2015

Author: C.L.Soni

Bench: C.L. Soni

                  C/SCA/11641/2015                                                      ORDER




                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                       SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11641 of 2015

         ==========================================================
                  DESAI (RABARI) RATANBHAI RAMJIBHAI....Petitioner(s)
                                      Versus
                       STATE OF GUJARAT & 3....Respondent(s)
         ==========================================================
         Appearance:
         MR VIJAY H NANGESH, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
         ADVANCE COPY SERVED TO GP/PP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
         ==========================================================

                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.L. SONI

                                           Date : 19/08/2015


                                            ORAL ORDER

1. By the present petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 12.1.2013 passed by respondent No.2 and the order dated 19.3.2015 passed by respondent No.3.

2. By order dated 19.3.2013, the Collector has rejected the application made by the petitioner for regularization of the encroachment made by the petitioner on the land bearing survey No. 4413 ad-measuring 174.29 square meters situated in village Vijapur,Taluka Vijapur, District Mehsana. The Collector has recorded in his order that on the above said land, the petitioner has constructed room and covered the land by wire fencing and such Page 1 of 3 HC-NIC Page 1 of 3 Created On Fri Aug 21 01:08:53 IST 2015 C/SCA/11641/2015 ORDER occupation of the petitioner is since without permission of the City Survey Superintendent, the application cannot be granted and the City Survey Superintendent as also the Chief Officer are directed to remove the encroachment.

3. By order dated 12.1.2015, the respondent No.2 - Additional Secretary has concurred with the finding recorded by the Collector and refused to interfere with the order made by the Collector. Learned Advocate Mr. Nangesh for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been in occupation of the Vada land for the last 60 years and in the year 2000, the petitioner made an application to regularize his occupation of vada land. However, such application was not considered though there is policy of the Government to regularize the occupation of the vada land. Mr. Nangesh submitted that the Collector as well as the Additional Secretary have failed to consider that the vada land occupied by the petitioner is for keeping cattle by the petitioner and the same is in consonance with the Government policy and, therefore, occupation of vada land by the petitioner was required to be regularized as per the policy of the State Government.

4. Having heard the learned advocate Mr. Nangesh, it appears that in application dated 19.4.2000 at annexure A page 25-A, the petitioner has requested to grant 60 square yards of vada land which is stated by the petitioner to be in front of his house and which has been used by him for his cattle. However, from the order of the Collector at page 40, it appears that the petitioner has encroached upon gamtal land to the extent of 174.29 square meters. It has been Page 2 of 3 HC-NIC Page 2 of 3 Created On Fri Aug 21 01:08:53 IST 2015 C/SCA/11641/2015 ORDER observed in the said order that the petitioner has made construction of a room on the said encroached gamtal land. The Collector has, therefore, rightly rejected the application of the petitioner for regularization and committed no error in directing the City Survey Superintendent and the Chief Officer to remove the encroachment on the gamtal land. The Additional Secretary has also committed no error in rejecting the revision application preferred by the petitioner by concurring with the finding recorded by the Collector. Mr. Nangesh has failed to point out any violation of the statutory rules or the provisions of the Act or any violation of the principles of natural justice while making the impugned orders by the Collector and the Additional Secretary. The petition has thus no substance. Hence rejected.

(C.L.SONI, J.) anvyas Page 3 of 3 HC-NIC Page 3 of 3 Created On Fri Aug 21 01:08:53 IST 2015