( 1 ) ). Rule. Mr. R. P. Solanki learned A. G. P. waives service of Rule on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2. Mr. B. B. Desai learned Counsel waives service of Rule on behalf of respondent No. 4

( 2 ) ). The petitioners are said to be members of the Gram Committee specially constituted for the purpose of representing their matter pertaining to the plots of land allotted by the Government under the scheme of providing land for landless labourers under the Resolution of Pal Gram Panchayat dated 27-6-1989. It is stated that the Government of Gujarat introduced a scheme for providing small plots of land admeasuring 100 sq. yds. each to the landless labourers for the purpose of constructing small houses for their dwelling purpose. A Committee was also constituted to scrutinise the applications. After scrutinising all the applications the Committee prepared a final list consisting of names of 190 persons. It is also stated that respondent No. 3 Gram Panchayat of Village Pal passed a Resolution dated 30 August 1986 to the effect that land of Block Nos. 397 and 398 bearing Revenue Survey No. 597 and 598 admeasuring about 13 0 sq. metres will suffice the purpose as it falls within the category of Government Gauchar land. It is also stated the respondent No. 4 Taluka Development Officer forwarded the complete papers along with the proposal to the Collector of Surat for necessary sanction and approval. The Collector enquired with the authorities of Surat Urban Development Authority (SUDA for short) regarding the same. SUDA did not recommend allotment of land bearing Survey Nos. 597 and 598 as it was falling within agricultural zone and opined that any land falling in an agricultural zone cannot be allotted for the purpose of construction. In view of the opinion expressed by the SUDA the Collector refused to accept the recommendation made by the Gram Panchayat. The collector accordingly directed the Gram Panchayat to immediately remove the encroachment made over the said land. It is alleged that suddenly on 16-6-1993 without prior notice or without affording any opportunity under the orders of the Collector a demolition drive was launched to remove them from the plots.

( 3 ) ). Mr. J. B. Pardiwala learned Counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners were put in possession over the plot in pursuance of resolution of the Panchayat and as such their possession of the plot cannot be said to be that of a trespasser simply because the Collector did not approve the resolution. The learned Counsel further contends that in any case the respondents were required to adopt a reasonable fair and just procedure. The learned Counsel places reliance on a declaration of the Court in Nehru Marg Cabin Association v. Modasa Nagar Palika reported in 1988 (1) GLR 441.

( 4 ) ). Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties in my considered view this petition deserves to be dismissed. In Nehru Marg Can in case this Court following Olgra Tellis case (A. I. R. 1981 SC 180) and Francis Coralis case (A. I. R. 1981 SC 745) held that while enforcing the law a reasonable fair and just procedure should be adopted. Their Lordships further held that it will be for the Court to decide whether the procedure adopted is reasonable fair and just or otherwise.

( 5 ) ). In the present petition the petitioners have not been able to show as to how the procedure adopted was unreasonable or unjust. If fairness is shown by the concerned authority no breach of violation of principle of natural justice can be complained of. 6 In this context reference may also be made to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Board of Mining Examination v. Ramjee reported in A. I. R. 1977 SC 965. Their Lordships observed as follows: natural Justice is no unruly horse no lurking land mine nor a justice cure-all. If fairness is shown by the decision-maker to the man proceeded against the form features and the fundamentals of such as essential processuals propriety