( 1 ) BY this petition under Art. 226 of the constitution of India, the petitioners have questioned the legality and validity of the action of the respondent-authority in not permitting them to carry on their business in the wooden cabins constructed by them on a land of the panchayat. Pursuant to the resolution of respondent No. 3, the then Nagar panchayat, Talala (now Gram Panchayat, Talala), dated 24-4-2008, the land, on the rental basis, was given to the petitioners, for the purpose of construction of cabins, on certain terms and conditions. The extent and area of the land allotted for that purpose is admeasuring 12 x 12 insofar as petitioner No. 1 is concerned and 10 x 8 insofar as the rest of the petitioners are concerned. The decision of respondent No. 3 was pursuant to the applications made by the petitioners for the grant and allotment of land on rental basis.

( 2 ) THE petitioners have, inter alia, contended that they are paying rent regularly to the Panchayat and the last payment was made for the year 1987- 1988, i. e. , for the period from April, 1987 to March, 1988. Respondent No. 3-Panchayat passed a resolution on 1-12-1984 for regularisation. Thus, they continued to enjoy and occupy as lessees even thereafter from 1987-88.

( 3 ) IT has been averred that the respondents had thereafter, started harassing the cabin holders in spite of the fact that they were in legal occupation in respect of the cabins. The land allotted to them for the purpose of raising cabins and for business is the ownership of the Panchayat and not the Government. It is also averred that the cabins constructed on the allotted land are not situated on the main road and there is no adverse impact or effect on the traffic or creating any other problem. The Collector concerned had given directions to regularise the possession of the cabin holders. In short, the main theme and core of the petition is that the petitioners are in lawful possession as lessees and they are paying rent regularly to respondent No. 3-Panchayat. However, the petitioners have further contended that the respondents are trying to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the cabins held and occupied by the petitioners and such an action would be illegal, ultra vires, inequitable, improper and unjust and since small cabins are the main source of their bread, they will be ruined if the respondent authority is not restrained from harassing and disturbing the petitioners in their peaceful and lawful enjoyment of the cabins. It is in this context and on those averments that the petitioners have sought relief against the respondents permanently restraining them from interfering with their possession.

( 4 ) RESPONDENT No. 3-Panchayat has appeared and relied on affidavit-in-repiy to counter the averments made in the petition. It is stated in the affidavit-in- reply filed by the Sarpanch-cum-Talati, that earlier, there was a Nagar Panchayat, and thereafter, it became Gram Panchayat and he works as the Sarpanch. It is, inter alia, contended that the cabins of the petitioners and others are situated and installed near the Bus Stand Chowk, near Panchayat Bhavan, which is a locality having thick traffic since Talala is a small town and there are traffic problems. The State Highway No. 26, known as Veraval-Sasan, is passing through the middle of the town. It is, therefore, the case of respondent No. 3 that the erection of cabins by the petitioners is obstructing the traffic. Since, there is heavy traffic of vehicles near the place of the cabins of the petitioners, it has resulted into traffic hazards. The affidavit-in-reply has also elaborately articulated the resultant problems on account of the cabins of the petitioners. It is also the contention of the respondent that the cabin holders occupy large place in front of their cabins, encroaching upon public place. The cabins of the petitioners are obstruction to pedestrians as well as vehicular traffic. Respond