AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N.N. Mathur, J.—Rule. Mr. R. P. Solanki, learned A.G.P. waives service of Rule on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. B. B. Desai, learned counsel waives service of Rule on behalf of respondent No. 4.
The petitioners are said to be members of the Gram Committee specially constituted for the purpose of representing their matter pertaining to the plots of land allotted by the Government under the scheme of providing land for landless labourers under the Resolution of Pal Gram Panchayat dated 27-6-1989. It is stated that the Government of Gujarat introduced a scheme for providing small plots of land admeasuring 100 sq. yds. each to the landless labourers for the purpose of constructing small houses for dwelling purpose. A committee was also constituted to scrutinise the applications. After scrutinising all the applications, the Committee prepared a final list consisting of names of 190 persons. It is also stated that respondent No. 3 Gram Panchayat of Village Pal passed a Resolution dated 30th August, 1986 to the effect that land of Block Nos. 397 and 398 bearing Revenue Survey Nos. 597 and 598 admeasuring about 13,000 sq. metres will suffice the purpose as it falls within the category of Government Gauchar land. It is also stated that respondent No. 4 -- Taluka Development Officer forwarded the complete papers along with the proposal to the Collector of Surat for necessary sanction and approval. The Collector enquired with the authorities of Surat Urban Development Authority (''SUDA'' for short) regarding the same. SUDA did not recommend allotment of land bearing survey Nos. 597 and 598, as it was falling within agricultural zone and opined that any land falling in an agricultural zone cannot be allotted for the purpose of construction. In view of the opinion expressed by the SUDA, the Collector refused to accept the recommendation made by the Gram Panchayat. The Collector accordingly directed the Gram Panchayat to immediately remove the encroachment made over the said land. It is alleged that suddenly on 16-6-1993, without prior notice or without affording any opportunity, under the orders of the Collector, a demolition drive was launched to remove them from the plots.
Mr. J. B. Pardiwala, learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners were put in possession over the plot in pursuance of resolution of the Panchayat and as such their possession of the plot cannot be said to be that of a trespasser, simply because the collector did not approve the resolution. The learned counsel further contends that in any case, the respondents were required to adopt a reasonable, fair and just procedure. The learned counsel places reliance on a decision of this court in Nehru Marg Cabin Association Vs. Modasa Nagar Palika and Others, .
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, in my considered view, this petition deserves to be dismissed. In Nehru Marg Cabin case, this Court following Olga Tellis case (AIR 1981 SC 180) and Francis Coralis case (AIR 1981 SC 746) held that while enforcing the law, a reasonable, fair and just procedure should be adopted. Their Lordships further held that, it will be for the court to decide whether the procedure adopted is reasonable, fair and just or otherwise.
In the present petition, the petitioners have not been able to show as to how the procedure adopted was unreasonable, or unjust. If fairness is shown by the concerned authority, no breach of violation of principle of natural justice can be complained of.
In this context, reference may also be made to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of The Chairman, Board of Mining Examination and Chief Inspector of Mines and Another Vs. Ramjee, . Their Lordships observed as follows:
"Natural justice is no unruly horse, no lurking land mine, nor a judicial cure-all. If fairness is shown by the decision-maker to the man proceeded against the form, features and the fundamentals of such essential processuals propriety being conditioned by the facts and circumstances of each situation, no breach of natural justice can be complained of. Unnatural expansion of natural justice, without reference to the administrative realities and other factors of a given case, can be exasperating."
In the instant case, Gram Panchayat of Village Pal selected land bearing survey Nos. 597 and 598, suitable for allotment to petitioners for construction of houses. This recommendation was not accepted by the Collector as the said land is an Agricultural land and, it cannot be allotted for residential use. Before the acceptance of proposal by competent authority if the petitioners had taken possession, they must thank themselves. The Collector, while rejecting the recommendation by order dated 6-10-1989, directed the Panchayat to remove the encroachment. The petitioners filed suit in 1989 and it is stated in the petition that the suit is still pending. After 4 years, in June 1993, action was taken of removal. Thus it is unjust to complain that the demolition drive was sudden and without notice. Thus, there is no merit in the petition.
At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioners points out that the petitioners have requested the authorities to change the zone of subject land from Agricultural to non-agricultural, and regularise the construction on the land. In view of the matter, it is considered expedient to dispose of this writ petition with following directions:
(a) The State Government shall dispose of the representations submitted by the petitioners. If any within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order :
(b) In case no representation has been made or according to the State Government no such representation has been received, the petitioners are allowed to submit fresh representations to the State Government within a period of two weeks mentioning on the top ''representation under the direction of the High Court";
(c) In case the petitioners desire to be heard in person, they will give name of one person who will be heard;
(d) In case such representation does not find favour with and in rejected, the representatives the petitioners shall be informed of the decision and the petition shall not be dispossessed for a period of one month from the date of communication of such decision. Status quo shall be maintained till one month after the decision of the representation referred to above is communicated.
This writ petition is dismissed accordingly. Rule discharged. There shall be no order as to costs.