Gujarat High Court
Kantibhai Gangarambhai Patel & vs State Of Gujarat & 7....Opponent(S) on 28 August, 2014
Author: J.B.Pardiwala
Bench: Akil Kureshi, J.B.Pardiwala
C/WPPIL/34/2012 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
WRIT PETITION (PIL) NO. 34 of 2012
================================================================
KANTIBHAI GANGARAMBHAI PATEL & 1....Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 7....Opponent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR NK MAJMUDAR, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1 - 2
MR VANDAN K BAXI, AGP for the Opponent(s) No. 1
MR HS MUNSHAW, ADVOCATE for the Opponent(s) No. 7 - 8
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Opponent(s) No. 1 - 4
RC JANI & ASSOCIATE, ADVOCATE for the Opponent(s) No. 5 - 6
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA
Date : 28/08/2014
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA)
1. By this writ application in the nature of a public interest litigation, the petitioners, agriculturists, of village Adiya, situated in Taluka Harij, District Patan have drawn our attention to the fact that an overhead water tank is being constructed upon survey no.52 by the respondents which is earmarked as a water body according to the record of the Gram Panchayat of the village Adiya. According to the petitioners such action and decision on part of the respondent authorities to construct an overhead water tank in a water body is violative of the provisions of section Page 1 of 3 C/WPPIL/34/2012 ORDER 38 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code as well as the provisions of sections 99 and 108 of the Gujarat Panchayat Act, 1993. In support of the cause, the petitioners have relied on a decision of this Court in case of Shailsh R. Shah v. State of Gujarat, Special Civil Application No.10621/2000 disposed of on 2.8.2002 along with the allied matters. In the said decision, it has been held that the Government should take all possible steps to see that the water bodies are protected and no encroachment is made upon such water bodies.
2. In response to the notice issued upon the respondents, an affidavit in reply has been filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 5 and 7 duly sworn by the Deputy Executive Engineer of the Gujarat Water Supply and Sewerage Board. The respondent nos.5 and 6 have denied the allegations levelled by the petitioners that the overhead water tank is being constructed on a water body. It has been clarified in the reply that survey no.52 of village Adiya, Taluka Harij is in two parts. (1) Survey No.52/1 admeasuring 9015 sq. mtrs vested with the pond and (2) Survey no.52/2 admeasuring 10130 sq. mtrs ( 2 acres and 20 gunthas) being a Gamtal land. It is further stated that the Collector, Mehsana vide his order dated 24.6.1982 bifurcated survey no.52 and the construction which has been made of the overhead water tank is not forming part of the water body but has been raised on the area of the Gamtal land. It is also stated that this petition is not a bona fide petition because just adjacent to the land on which the overhead water tank has been constructed, is the land of the petitioners' family and the petitioners were cultivating the said Gamtal land since Page 2 of 3 C/WPPIL/34/2012 ORDER long. It has been further stated that the construction of the overhead water tank is in the larger public interest, more particularly, for the members of the Schedule Caste and the Schedule Tribe and it has a storage capacity of 30,000 litres. The respondent no.8 has also filed a reply denying the allegations levelled by the petitioners.
3. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, we find that the construction of the overhead water tank is already completed long time back. We do not find any substance in the case of the petitioners that the water tank has been constructed over a water body. This aspect has been well explained by the authorities in their affidavit in reply. Thus we do not find any violation of any provisions of law or breach of any of the directions issued by this Court in the decision referred to above.
4. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in this petition and same is accordingly rejected. No costs.
(AKIL KURESHI, J.) (J.B.PARDIWALA, J.) raghu Page 3 of 3