J.B. PARDIWALA, J. - By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the nature of a Public Interest Litigation, the petitioners who are residents of village Mahi, Taluka Vadgam, District Banaskantha have prayed for a writ of mandamus upon respondent no.2 Collector, quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 18th January 2011 allotting a portion of 'gauchar' land in favour of respondent nos.3 and 4 and have also prayed for appropriate directions to the respondent authorities to keep the land bearing Survey No.234/A/1 paiki of village Mahi, Taluka Vadgam, District Banaskantha as village 'gauchar' land.

2. The case made out by the petitioners in this petition can be summarised as under :

1. Petitioners are residents of village Mahi, Taluka Vadgam, District Banaskantha and earn their livelihood by doing agricultural operations.

2. The land in question which is the subject matter of dispute belongs to Mahi Gram Panchayat as reflected from 7/12 extract of the revenue records.

3. On 30th March 2010, the Sarpanch of the Panchayat passed an illegal resolution stating that the Panchayat has no objection if part of the land in question is allotted to the private respondents herein by the State Government.

4. As the said resolution was passed illegally without taking into consideration the repercussion of the same, the petitioners and other villagers preferred a representation dated 16th July 2010 to Mahi Gram Panchayat to review its decision dated 30th March 2010.

5. The Panchayat accordingly reviewed its earlier decision by passing an appropriate resolution dated 20th July 2010 stating that as the land in question is a 'gauchar' land the Panchayat has objections and do not agree for the allotment of land to private respondents.

6. Record reveals that respondent nos.3 and 4 challenged the said decision of the Gram Panchayat before the appellate committee who, vide order dated 3rd September 2010, allowed the appeal and set-aside the resolution dated 20th July 2010 passed by the Mahi Gram Panchayat.

7. Against the said decision of the appellate committee, the Panchayat preferred a revision application before the State Government, which came to be allowed vide order dated 29th September 2011.

8. According to the petitioners, as on today, the second resolution passed by the Panchayat is in force and, therefore, it could be said that the Panchayat has not consented for allotment of 'gauchar' land by the State Government in favour of private respondents.

9. On 9th August 2010, the petitioners and other villagers of village Mahi requested respondent no.2 that no 'gauchar' land be allotted to private respondents as there are around 3,961 cattle in the village and the area of 'gauchar' is utterly inadequate. It was further pointed out that the private respondents in whose favour the land is being allotted are in fact not affected persons and it is an attempt to grab the land, whereby the land would ultimately go to the builders and few influential persons of the area.

10. On 25th August 2010, the respondent no.2 informed the private respondents that they would have to select land from some other village and not from the village Mahi.

11. It is also the case of the petitioners that respondent no.2 was informed by the Panchayat on 28th September 2010 that it had already preferred a revision application before the State Government against the order of the appellate committee.

12. On 12th August 2010, the petitioners preferred a detailed representation to the respondent no.2 herein requesting not to allot the land in question to the private respondents. It was pointed out that there were various other waste lands which could be given to the private respondents and the land might not be given from 'gauchar' land of village Mahi.

13. On 16th September 2010, all the villagers of village Mahi lodged their objections before the respondent no.2 against the allotment of the land to the private respondents.

14. It is the case of