IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 4755 of 1995
WITH
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5715 OF 1995
For Approval and Signature:
Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE R.K.ABICHANDANI
============================================================
1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed
to see the judgements?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy
of the judgement?
4. Whether this case involves a substantial question
of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder?
5. Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge?
————————————————————–
POPATLAL DARJIBHAI PATEL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
————————————————————–
Appearance:
SPECIAL C.A. NO. 4755 OF 1995
MR. A.V. PRAJAPATI for MR. PB MAJMUDAR for Petitioners
MR. J.M. THAKORE, ADVOCATE GENERAL WITH
MR. K.C. SHAH, A.G.P. FOR RESPONDENT NO.1
MR HS MUNSHAW for Respondent No. 2 and 3
MR TUSHAR MEHTA for Respondent No. 4
SPECIAL C.A. NO. 5715/95
MR TUSHAR MEHTA, ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER
MR. J.M. THAKORE, ADVOCATE GENERAL
WITH MR. K.C. SHAH, A.G.P. FOR THE RESPONDENT NOS. 1, 4
AND 7
MR. H.S. MUNSHAW FOR RESPONDENT NOS. 2 AND 3
————————————————————–
CORAM : MR.JUSTICE R.K.ABICHANDANI
Date of decision: 07/02/97
ORAL JUDGEMENT
The Special Civil Application No. 4755/95
has been filed by residents of village Vanod in
Surendranagar District, for a direction on the District
Development Officer and the Taluka Development Officer,
the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 therein, to take action
against the respondent No.4 – Gram Panchayat, for not
shifting the Panchayat Office to the new premises. In
the alternative, it is prayed that the Panchayat should
be superseded.
The Special Civil Application No. 5715/95 is
also filed by some residents of the same village and they
seek a direction on the respondent authorities and the
said Gram Panchayat that the construction put up on the
land for its use as Panchayat office should be demolished
on the ground that the land which was ear-marked as
“zhok” land in which the petitioners were entitled to
keep their cattle at night, was used for construction.
Earlier, the controversy as regards the shifting
of the Panchayat office to the new building had surfaced
in Special C.A No. 2388/95. In that matter, the said
Panchayat had approached the High Court seeking a
direction for taking action against the authorities for
removing the record and other things belonging to the
Panchayat to the new office forcibly at middle of the
night. That controversy was amicably resolved and the
Panchayat agreed to occupy the new building while
retaining its old building and by the Panchayat taking up
the stand that both the buildings will be used by it.
The Panchayat has taken up a stand that both the
buildings are being used by it. This stand is reflected
in the affidavit in reply filed by the Panchayat in
Special C.A No. 4755/95, in which it has been stated in
paragraph 9 that the Panchayat is using both the
buildings – namely the existing Panchayat office building
as well as the newly constructed building. If at all the
Panchayat is not using any building, then it will be for
the concerned authorities to look into the matter in
accordance with law and the petitioners of Special C.A
No. 4755/95 can have no say in the matter. These
petitioners cannot insist about the place from where the
Panchayat should run its office and none of the rights of
these petitioners are affected in any manner by the
Panchayat functioning from its office in one building or
the other. Under the earlier arrangement, it was open
for the Panchayat to use both the buildings and the
petitioners have no locus standi to seek a direction that
the Panchayat should function from any particular place.
The petitioners of Special Civil Application No. 4755/95
are therefore, not entitled to any relief as prayed for
by them and that petition is liable to be rejected.
As regards Special Civil Application No.
5715/95, it is clear that the alleged rights of the
petitioners to use any particular land as “zhok” land
involve several questions of facts, which cannot be
investigated in the writ jurisdiction of this Court.
These petitioners do not appear to have taken any steps
at the time when the new building was constructed and
having allowed that building to be constructed, they are
now trying to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court
for examining their alleged customary rights in respect
of the land. As observed above, it will not be
appropriate for this Court to go into those questions in
this petition. Special Civil Application No. 5715/95
is, therefore, also liable to be rejected.
Under the above circumstances, both these
petitions are rejected. Rule is discharged in Special
Civil Application No. 4755/95 with no order as to costs.
Interim relief stands vacated.
In Special Civil Application No. 5715 of 1995
which was ordered to be heard with Special Civil
Application No. 4755/95, notice is discharged with no
order as to costs.
——
