Gujarat High Court
Gau Raksha Hitrakshak Manch And ... vs Chief Secretary & 7....Opponent(S) on 21 November, 2014
C/WPPIL/214/2012 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
WRIT PETITION (PIL) NO. 214 of 2012
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
MR. VIJAY MANOHAR SAHAI
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.P.DHOLARIA
================================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see
the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the
judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as
to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 or any
order made thereunder ?
5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
================================================================
GAU RAKSHA HITRAKSHAK MANCH AND GAUCHAR-PARYAVARAN
BACHAV....Applicant(s)
Versus
CHIEF SECRETARY & 7....Opponent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR NM KAPADIA, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1
GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Opponent(s) No. 1
MR DIPEN C SHAH, ADVOCATE for the Opponent(s) No. 8
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.
Page 1 of 4
C/WPPIL/214/2012 JUDGMENT
VIJAY MANOHAR SAHAI
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.P.DHOLARIA
Date : 21/11/2014
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. VIJAY MANOHAR SAHAI)
1. We have heard Mr. N.M. Kapadia, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Vandan Baxi, learned AGP appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 5 and Mr. Dipen C. Shah, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.8.
2. This petition in the nature of Public Interest Litigation has been filed by the petitioner for the following reliefs:
"[A] Your Lordships be pleased to direct the respondents No.1 to 7 to resume the possession of the land bearing survey No. 42/B of village:Ramara-2 and survey No. 603 of Village:Bherai from the respondent No.8 and thereby be pleased to direct the respondents to implement the order dated 31.12.2009 passed by the Collector Amreli duly confirmed by the order dated 12.10.2011 passed by the Special Secretary, Revenue Department, Ahmedabad and Your Lordships be pleased to direct the respondents to levy and recover the rent from the respondent No.8 regarding aforesaid land at a market rate [instead of concessional rate] with interest at the rate of 12% from the date of the grant.
[B] Your Lordships be pleased to direct the respondents No. 1,2,5,6 to forthwith allot the land of survey no. 42/B of Village:Rampara-2 in favour of the Rampara Gram Panchayat for the purpose of its requirement of gauchar land.Page 2 of 4
C/WPPIL/214/2012 JUDGMENT [C] Your Lordships be pleased to hold that the
resolution dated 6.6.2003 issued by the respondent No.2 is illegal, unreasonable, discriminatory and offending the Article 14 of the Constitution of India and to direct the respondents to dispose of the Government land only by way of public auction.
[D] Your Lordships be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the circulars dated 12.6.07, 30.11.99, 22.4.08 by holding the same as illegal and without any authority of law.
[E] Your Lordships be pleased to direct the respondents and particularly the respondents No. 1 and 2 to frame the rules as required under section 39 of the Land Revenue Code and further be pleased to direct the respondents to place before this Hon'ble Court the action taken report before this Hon'ble Court on the basis of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jagpal Singh Vs. State of Punjab.
[F] Your Lordships be pleased to direct the respondents to hold inquiry regarding the encroachment regarding the gauchar land belonging to the respondent No.7 and further be pleased to direct the respondents to remove the illegal encroachment as per the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jagpal Singh Vs. State of Punjab.
[G] Any other appropriate relief deemed just, fit and proper may please be granted."
3. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner does not press the relief claimed in relief para-[F]. Therefore, the prayer [F] is not pressed by the petitioner as he wants to challenge the issue referred in the said relief by way of separate petition.
Page 3 of 4C/WPPIL/214/2012 JUDGMENT
4. In view of the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, we need not go into the facts of the case and this petition can be decided on a short point.
5. So far as the other reliefs are concerned, the petitioner wants that the order of the Collector, Amreli dated 31st December, 2009 as confirmed by the order dated 12th October, 2011 passed by the Special Secretary, Revenue be complied with. Such relief cannot be granted in view of the fact stated in the affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondent no.8, wherein, in paragraph-5 thereof at page 204 of the paper book, it has been stated that Special Civil Application No. 7525 of 2012 has been filed before this Court challenging the above mentioned two orders passed by the Collector, Amreli as well as the order passed by the Special Secretary, Revenue and the said petition is pending before this Court.
6. Since the above mentioned two orders have been challenged by way of separate writ petition before this Court, this Court, in this Public Interest Litigation cannot direct the implementation of the said orders. Therefore, this petition deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
(V.M.SAHAI, ACJ.) (R.P.DHOLARIA,J.) pirzada Page 4 of 4