AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ravi R. Tripathi, J.—Pursuant to order passed by this Court on 15th November 2010, whereby the Petitioners were directed to see that the encroachment made is removed at the earliest, learned advocate Mr. Sharma, on instructions from his clients, makes a statement before the Court that the Petitioners did remove the encroachment. The learned advocate further states, on instructions from his clients, that there was no ''pucca'' construction, it was only ''kutcha wada'' and that has been vacated by the Petitioners.
In light of that statement the Court does not pass any further order of recovery of rent from the Petitioners from the date they claimed possession of the land in question, viz. 1988.
Heard learned advocate Mr. Niraj J. Sharma for the Petitioners. Mr. Sharma vehemently submitted that the auction which took place on 21st January 1988 was not legal and there were various flaws in the auction as the authorities did not comply with necessary provisions for the same. Besides that the case of the Petitioners is that as the land is adjoining to the residential premises of the Petitioners and the Petitioners are in possession of the land and they are using that land for keeping their cattle; the authorities ought to have considered the application filed by the Petitioners as early as on 27th August 1985, a copy of which is produced at page 16 and thereafter another application dated 10th February 1987, a copy of which is produced at page 15. It is contended by the learned advocate that the authorities ought to have considered the request of the Petitioners and ought to have granted the land to the Petitioners.
In the present case, the auction was held on 21st January 1988 by the Sarpanch-Respondent No. 4 herein. It is the case of the authorities that it was after necessary permission was granted by the Taluka Development Officer the auction was held. Subsequently, the Taluka Development Officer sanctioned sanction the auction dated 21st January 1988 on 29th April 1988. The Petitioners being aggrieved by the outcome of the auction, challenged that auction before the Deputy Collector by filing Appeal No. 42 of 1988, which came to be allowed by the Deputy Collector by order dated 30th December 1988 whereby the Deputy Collector was pleased to quash the order of auction and remitted the matter to the Taluka Development Officer, Palanpur for ascertaining as to whether the land in question is a ''Gamtal,'' a ''Gauchar'' or a Government land and if there is unauthorized possession of the Petitioners, the same should be removed and thereafter, fresh decision be taken.
Against this order of the Deputy Collector, the affected parties, viz. Respondents No. 5 to 9 filed an appeal which came to be decided by the Collector by judgment and order dated 29th January 1991, who allowed the appeal and quashed and set aside the order passed by the Deputy Collector dated 30th December 1988 and confirmed the order sanctioning the auction sale by the Taluka Development Officer dated 29th April 1988. Against this order of the Collector, the present Petitioners preferred the appeal before the SSRD, who decided the same by judgment and order dated 7th October 1992, who confirmed the order of the Collector dated 29th January 1991. In the result the order of the Taluka Development Officer dated 29th April 1988 sanctioning the auction stood confirmed.
Thus, there are sane findings recorded by three authorities, firstly by the Taluka Development Officer, secondly by the Collector and thirdly by the SSRD.
The learned advocate for the Petitioner has vehemently submitted that the authorities below have committed error in not considering the important aspect of the matter, namely, the land is situated adjacent to the residential premises of the Petitioner, that the Petitioners are in possession of the premises and that the requisite procedure was not followed by the authorities-Sarpanch in holding the auction.
None of these contentions found favour with the authorities. Besides, all these questions are the questions of disputed facts and therefore, this Court refused to go into any of these questions. Even otherwise, it appears from the record that the Petitioners encroached upon the land and then claimed the land by way of indulgence from the authorities by saying that the land be given to them by a deeming auction or by fixing a price for the same taking into consideration the fact that the land is adjacent to their residential premises and that they are in possession thereof. The learned advocate could not satisfactorily convince this Court that any gross illegality or irregularity is committed in holding the auction and therefore, this petition fails and the same is dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.