G.B. Shah, J.

1. Heard, learned Advocate Mr. S.V. Parmar for the petitioner, Mr. B.S. Patel, learned Advocate for the respondent No. 2, Mr. N.K. Majmudar, learned Advocate for the respondent No. 3 and Mr. Rahul Dave, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent No. 1. In Para 2 of this petition it is averred that this petition is directed against the order dated 11-3-2002 passed by respondent No. 2-Ankleshwar Nagar Palika (hereinafter referred to as the 'Nagar Palika') at the behest of the respondent No. 1-Collector, Bharuch District and to say that encroachment has not been regularized prima facie appears not correct because it is not the encroachment but a planned action of the respondent No. 2-Nagar Palika and Hiralal Nathubhai Choksi, who is not the party and who has sold the land in question along with the immovable property to the present petitioner.

2. The main prayer sought for in the present petition reads as under:

"8(A) Issue writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order, quashing and setting aside the order Annexures 'A', 'B', 'E', 'F', 'G', and T.

8(B) xxx xxx xxx."

3.1. Before narrating the facts it is desirable to go through the map produced at page No. 82, on which, the learned Advocate for the petitioner has placed reliance. Drawing attention of the Court on the said map, the learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the present petitioner is the owner of land being City Survey Nos. 1140 and 1141, which are marked in red cross lines and the blue coloured portion, shown in the said map, is the subject-matter of the present petition (hereinafter referred to as 'the land in question'). One Shri Bhadrakant H. Shah, the respondent No. 3 is the owner of City Survey No. 1423, shown in the said map. The learned Advocate for the petitioner further invited attention of the Court to said City Survey No. 1423 as well as City Survey No. 816 and submitted that referring to the middle portion in between both the said City Survey numbers, the portion shown as road appears 6.70 meters wide. He then invited attention of the Court to the southern end of the road adjacent to the City Survey No. 1145 and submitted that width of the said road, as shown, is 9.70 meters. The learned Advocate for the petitioner then submitted that thus it is clear from the map that the land in question, which is shown in blue colour in the map, is on the northern side of the petitioner's property, which is, as such, admeasuring 25' x 3', which comes to 6.97 sq.mtrs., and leaving the said land in question, mere appears 13 meters wide road and at some places 13.10 meters wide road on the northern side of the said land in question. Likewise, road in between City Survey Nos. 1134 and 1141, which is west to east direction, is of 12.50 meters and going downwards near City Survey No. 1145, the width of the road from west towards east is 9.70 meters. Mr. Parmar, learned Advocate for the petitioner, has mainly submitted that the blue coloured portion in the map on page No. 82 is not a part of the public street. It is pertinent to note at this juncture that, as reflected in the order dated 24-2-2002, Mr. Parmar, learned Advocate for the petitioner, has marked the land in question in blue colour in me said map at page No. 82 (Annexure 'K' to the petition), showing me petitioner's property bearing Survey Nos. 1140 and 1141 by drawing the red cross lines in the said map. It is not in dispute that so far as respondent No. 3 is concerned, his property is situated at Survey No. 1423, which appears a little far from the land in question.

3.2. During the course of his submissions the learned Advocate for the petitioner has placed reliance on Rule 53 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Land Revenue Rules'), which provides for unoccupied building sites etc. within municipal limits to be distinguished from lands forming part of public streets. The said Rule reads as under:

"53(1