JUDGMENT
Jayant Patel, J.
1. Mr.Japee, learned Counsel for the petitioner, states that respondents No. 3 and 4 are served.
With the consent of the parties the matter is finally decided today.
2. The short facts of the case are that it is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is having residential land at Village Lolasan and he had applied for grant of additional land. The case of the petitioner is that the Gram Panchayat had recommended for allotment of the land. However, subsequently the area was allotted to the petitioner admeasuring 35-31-90 sq. mtrs. on condition that the recovery shall be made of the adjacent land.
3. The respondent No. 5 preferred appeal before the District Collector and as per the decision dated 30-7-1998, the appeal was dismissed but the District Collector while confirming the order also directed the petitioner to remove the construction made by him on the Western side exceeding 19 ft., not allotted to the petitioner. The petitioner preferred revision before the State Government against the order of the District Collector and in he said revision initially stay order was granted. Thereafter, as per the petitioner the respondent No. 5 herein submitted the application objecting the grant of stay and the hearing of the application was fixed on 1.2.2000. It is the case of the petitioner that on 1.2.2000 the matter was kept on 7.3.2000 and the petitioner had remained present on 7.3.2000 and on that day the matter was not heard and the petitioner was communicated that the next date of hearing will be communicated to him. It is further the case of the petitioner that the petitioner enquired into the matter, but he came to know about the final order having been passed by the Secretary of the State Government on 22.7.2004 only when Gram Panchayat issued notice to him dated 30th September, 2004 that the revision is dismissed and the stay order is vacated and it is under these circumstances the petitioner has approached this Court by preferring this petition.
4. When this Court considered the matter for the first time on 6-1-2004 following order was passed:
” Mr.Japee, Mr.Japee, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, under the instructions of his client, states that the petitioner shall first remove the alleged encroachment made over the area exceeding 19 x 20 ft., within a period of one week and it shall accordingly be reported to the District Collector, in case this Court is inclined to consider the matter for remanding the case to the State Government for rehearing. However, he submitted that the removal of the alleged encroachment shall be without prejudice to the rights and contentions in the revision.
In view of the above, notice returnable on 20-10-2004. By ad-interim order, it is directed that the petitioner shall remove the alleged encroachment over the plot exceeding the area of 19 x 20 ft. (which is allotted to him) within a period of one week from today and shall report to the District Collector in writing. After such intimation before the returnable date, the District Collector shall verify the said aspects of removal through any Officer who may be nominated by him and shall report to this Court on the next returnable date. As the petitioner has undertaken to remove the alleged encroachment within a period of one week from today, for the present Gram Panchayat shall not take action, but if the construction is not removed, which is an encroachment exceeding the area of 19 x 20 ft., the Gram Panchayat shall be at liberty to demolish the said encroachment.
Direct service is permitted.”
5. Thereafter the District Collector has submitted a report dated 19-10-2004 along with the panchnama showing that the encroachment as declared before the Court had been removed and the said panchnama is also taken on record. As a consequence thereof, now there is no construction or encroachment over the area exceeding 19 ft. x 20 ft. which is allotted to the petitioner.
6. Upon hearing Mr.Japee, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Desai, learned AGP for the State authorities, it appears that the case of the petitioner is that on 7.3.2000 the petitioner had remained present and he was informed that the next date of hearing will be communicated and thereafter the petitioner has learnt about the final order having been passed. The learned AGP appearing for respondent No. 2 is not in a position to dispute the said aspects, nor is he in a position to show any material before this Court that the hearing was given to the petitioner by the State Government before passing the final order. The perusal of the notice at Annexure “B” dated 12.1.2000 on the basis of which the matter is said to have been heard or decided by the Secretary of the State Government shows that as such the hearing was on the point as to whether the stay order should be continued or not and the perusal of the impugned order shows that the matter is finally decided by the State Government in revision. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances, it appears that the order was passed by the State Government without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and, therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained in view of the non-observance of the principles of natural justice.
7. However, as the declaration is made before this Court to show the bonafide on the part of the petitioner and as the petitioner has accordingly removed encroachment, which was made by making construction over the area exceeding 19ft. x 20 ft., neither the petitioner should be allowed to re-encroached the area, nor should the respondent be allowed to allot the said land to anyone else until the representation is finally decided and, therefore, while quashing the order and directing for re-hearing, the status-quo is required to be maintained by both the sides as indicated hereinabove.
8. In view of the above, the impugned order passed by the State Government dated 22.7.2004 Annexure “D” is quashed and set aside on the ground of non-observance of principles of natural justice and it is further directed that the revision preferred by the petitioner shall stand restored to the file of the State Government and the concerned Officer of the State Government hearing the revision shall give opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as to other concerned parties to the proceedings of the revision and shall finally decided the revision as early as possible, preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the order of this Court. It is also directed that until the revision is finally heard and decided and the order is communicated to the petitioner, the status-quo qua the land in question exceeding the area of 19 ft. x 20 ft. shall be maintained by the petitioner as well as by respondent authority and respondents No. 4 and 5 also. The contention of both the sides shall remain open in Revision.
9. The petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. Rule made absolute accordingly. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.