Chetan Haribhai Barad vs State Of Gujarat

A.J.Desai, J

[1.0] A resident of Sutrapada Taluka, by way of present petition in the nature of Public Interest Litigation has prayed as under:

“(A) Direct the respondent authority to take the appropriate direction and order against the respondents for removing the illegal construction made by Shree B.M. Barad Education Trust on, Survey No.2191 paiki 1 and Survey No.2192 paiki 2 of City Sutrapada and restricted to change of use of lease land, which is given by the State / Authorities;

(B) Direct the respondents authorities to take the appropriate direction for strictly compliance of condition which is stated at the time of allotment order of the Collector dated 30.6.2015 and direct to restrict the Misuse of lease land and also direct the use of land only for the Sports activity of the School student / Children;

(C) Direct the respondents authorities to take the immediate appropriate steps to prevent the systematic transfer of interest and title of land in question (Survey No.2191 paiki 1 and Survey No.2192 paiki 2 of City Sutrapada) to private persons / Commercial firm and Alternative Direct the concern authorities to take the Appropriate legal steps under appropriate law and Gujarat Land Grabbing Act against the users and illegal benefited persons of the said Commercial Complex on lease land;

(D) Direct the respondents authorities to cancel the allotment of lease land to Shree B.M. Barad Education Trust and handed over to Any other Registered Education Trust which are working in the Sutrapada Town or handed over to village panchayat / Sutrapada Nagarpalika;”

[2.0] It is the case of the petitioner that though the land bearing Survey No.2191 paiki 1 and Survey No.2192 paiki 2 of City Sutrapada (hereinafter referred to as “said land”) was given to respondent No.9 by the District Collector, Gir Somnath for construction of school and play ground, some portion of the said land has been used for commercial purposes i.e. shops have been constructed. In support of the petition, the petitioner has produced several photographs.

[3.0] In response to the notice issued by this Court, respondent No.9 – Trust has filed its affidavit in reply and opposed the grant of reliefs. The petitioner has also filed further affidavit which is taken on record.

[4.0] Learned advocate Mr. Sandip Patel appearing for the petitioner would submit that originally the said land was granted by the District Collector to respondent No.9 – Trust for establishing school alongwith play ground however, some portion of the said land has been used by respondent No.9 – Trust for constructing shops which are being used for commercial purposes. Therefore, there is breach of terms and conditions of the allotment of the said land so granted by the District Collector to the respondent No. 9 – Trust. He, therefore, would submit that the authorities may be directed to illegally remove the construction put up by respondent No.9.

[5.0] On the other hand, learned Senior Advocate Mr. Percy Kavina with learned advocate Mr. J.A. Adeshra appearing for respondent No.9 would submit that respondent No.9 – Trust has already filed an application before the District Collector for regularization of construction put up by respondent No.9 since only small portion of the said land is used for putting up shops. The purpose of constructing shops was to have some financial assistance for properly carrying out the school activities. Mr. Kavina, learned Counsel would further submit that under the provisions of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879, the Trust has already made an application to regularize the construction put by the Trust. He would further submit that the said application is pending before the District Collector.

[5.1] By taking us through a communication dated 16.12.2022 issued by the District Collector, he would further submit that approval, as to whether or not to regularize the construction put up by respondent No.9, has been sought from the concerned Department of the State of Gujarat He, therefore, would submit at this stage that the prayers to demolish the structure put up on the said land may not be accepted.

[6.0] Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. K.M. Antani appearing for respondent No.2 would submit that the application filed by respondent No.9 – Trust for regularization of construction is required to be dealt with in accordance with law.

[7.0] Having heard learned Counsel appearing for respective parties and considering the above referred facts, we dispose of the present petition by passing the following order.

(1) The State Authorities shall decide the application filed by respondent No.9 – Trust under the provisions of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879 for regularization of the construction put up by respondent No.9 on certain portion of the said land, in accordance with law and after examining the material placed before it.

(2) The State Authorities shall decide the said application as early as possible preferably within a period of three months from today.

[7.1] It is hereby made clear that this Court has not examined the legality and validity of the issues involved in the present petition. It is needless to say that if the petitioner is aggrieved with the decision that may be taken by the State Authorities on the application filed by respondent No.9, the petitioner may challenge the same in accordance with law before appropriate Forum.

[8.0] With above directions, present petition is disposed of. Rule accordingly.

[9.0] In view of disposal of Writ Petition, Civil Application (For Stay) No. 1 of 2022 in Writ Petition (PIL) No.69 of 2022 also stands disposed of.