Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/679420/2008 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 6794 of 2008
=========================================================
KANBI(PANTROD)
MOHANBHAI RAGABHAI - Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 6 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
TEJAS M BAROT for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent(s) : 1,
MR
HS MUNSHAW for Respondent(s) : 2 - 3.
NOTICE SERVED for
Respondent(s) : 3 - 5.
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for Respondent(s) : 3 -
5.
MR PRAKASH K JANI for Respondent(s) : 6 -
7.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
Date
: 28/07/2008
ORAL
ORDER
The
petitioner was an elected Sarpanch of village Thaver, Taluka
Dhanera, District Banaskantha. In this petition he has challenged an
order dated 28.4.2008 passed by Additional Development Commissioner
by which his appeal against order passed the DDO dated 24.9.2007
came to be dismissed. For certain alleged irregularities stated to
have been committed by the petitioner, a show cause notice came to
be issued against him by DDO on 11.6.2007. In the show cause notice,
it was stated inter-alia that the petitioner had encroached the
Government Gamtal land to the extent of 600 sq. ft. It was also
alleged that by misusing his position he has neither removed nor
allowed anyone else to remove such encroachment.
The
petitioner replied to the show cause notice and made a detailed
representation on 18.9.2007. He denied that he had encroached the
Government land. He stated that proceedings are initiated out of
mala fides. He also contended that he had taken steps to remove
encroachment of other persons in the village by issuing notice.
DDO
however, did not accept the explanation. In his order dated
24.9.2007, he came to the conclusion that the petitioner had
encroached the Government land and that even at the time of passing
of order such encroachment had continued. He also found that though
instructions were given to Sarpanch for removing other
encroachments, he has taken no steps. Additional Development
Commissioner concurred with the view of the DDO and rejected the
appeal of the petitioner.
Before
me learned advocate Shri Kavina appearing for Shri Barot, learned
advocate for the petitioner has made detailed submissions. I have
also heard the advocates appearing for the respondents.
Having
heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties, I do not see
any reason to interfere. Two Authorities below have concurrently
found as a matter of fact that petitioner had encroached the
Government land. On the date when DDO was passing order, such
encroachment continued. The petitioner if wanted to take steps,
at-least after issuance of show cause notice by DDO, should have
removed the encroachment. As a Sarpanch it was not only his duty to
ensure that the Government property is properly looked after, he
at-least could not have indulged in encroachment on the Government
land. Learned Single Judge of this Court in case of Kalaji
Hathiji Tajkore v. State of Gujarat & anr. reported in
2001(1) GLR 734 under somewhat similar circumstances upheld the
decision of the authorities below in case of Upa-Sarpanch.
In
the result, petition fails, hereby dismissed. Notice is discharged.
(Akil
Kureshi,J.)
(raghu)
Top