Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/8449/2011 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 8449 of
2011
=========================================================
VASANTBHAI
GOVINDBHAI PATEL - Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT THRO'LD. ADDL. SECRETARY REVENUE DEPTT; & 2 -
Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR
NV GANDHI for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MS MINI NAIR AGP for Respondent(s) : 1,
None
for Respondent(s) : 2 -
3.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT
Date
: 11/07/2011
ORAL
ORDER
Heard
learned advocate for the petitioner.
The
petitioner, revisionist applicant before the respondent no.1, has
approached this Court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution
of India, challenging the order dated 30.05.2011, passed by the
respondent no.1, rejecting the Revision Application, challenging the
order dated 03.04.2008, passed by the concerned Collector declining
to regularize the encroachment made by the petitioner on the
Government land.
The
admitted facts, as stated in the memo of the petition, would go to
show that the petitioner is not having any title, right or
entitlement to remain on the land in question. He is, in other
words, admittedly an encroacher upon the land. The Counsel for the
petitioner relying upon the Government Resolution dated 08.01.1980,
particularly paragraph 6 of the resolution, contended that the
petitioner derives his right from the said resolution for getting
his encroachment regularized.
This
Court is of the view that the said submission was made before the
Revisional Authority and despite that the regularization was not
granted. The Court has perused the order impugned wherein, it is
recorded that the Mamlatdar, Nizar, and Taluka Development Officer,
Nizar, made submission that for the landless labourers,
it was proposed to allot 100
sq. yards plot and for that one Shri Dayabhai Subhashbhai Patel’s
land was proposed to be acquired. But as the said land was
encumbered, it was
found that the original owner was not agreeable. The land in
question is not capable of being regularized, as it was not falling
under the provision of Government Resolution dated 08.01.1980. The
authority has also observed that the applicant-petitioner is already
having agricultural land as
well as residential premises and the encroachment was deliberate and
with a view to grab the land in question and in that view of the
matter, the Revision Application was rejected vide order dated
02.05.2011. In my view, under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, this Court would not exercise extraordinary jurisdiction in
favour of the encroacher and hence the petition being bereft of
merits and deserves rejection and it is accordingly rejected. No
costs.
(S.R.BRAHMBHATT,
J.)
Pankaj
Top