The main legal point established in the judgment is that the principles of natural justice are required to be followed before passing the order of summary eviction under section 61 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, and unauthorized possession of government land does not give the possessor the right to get it regularized.

B.M. Trivedi, J.

1. The petition has come up for consideration along with the Civil Application filed by the respondent- State Authorities seeking vacation of interim relief granted by the Court vide order dated 24.12.2014. With the consent of learned Advocates for the parties, the main petition was heard finally and is being decided hereunder.

2. The petitioner by way of present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has challenged the legality and validity of the impugned order dated 01.01.2014 passed by the Respondent No. 2 Mamlatdar (Annexure-F) under section 61 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Code' for short) directing to remove encroachment made by the petitioner from the land in question and further directing recovery of penalty from the petitioner. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 27.11.2014 passed by the Respondent No. 6-Collector (Annexure-O) earmarking the land for the constructions of government offices and staff quarters in exercise of powers conferred under section 38 of the said Code.

3. The brief facts giving rise to the present petition are as under:

4. The respondent No. 2- Mamlatdar had issued the notice dated 19.11.2013 (Annexure-B) calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why action under section 61 of the said Code should not be taken against him, he having made illegal encroachment upon the land bearing Survey No. 117 paiki ad-measuring 01 Hc.-20 Are (hereinafter referred to as 'the land in question' for short). The petitioner in response to the said notice had submitted the reply dated 09.12.2013 (Annexure-E) requesting, inter alia, that the said encroachment be regularized as he had incurred huge expenses for the development of the said land to make it cultivable. The respondent No. 2 thereafter passed the impugned order dated 01.01.2014 (Annexure-F) holding that the petitioner had made an encroachment and had unauthorizedly cultivated the land in question since last more than 25 years, and directed the petitioner to pay the penalty as mentioned therein and further directed to remove the said encroachment.

5. It further appears that the said order of Mamlatdar remained unchallenged by the petitioner. Hence, the said encroachment was sought to be removed by the respondent authorities on 15.11.2014 by drawing the panchnama in presence of the panch-witnesses (Annexure-K). The respondent No. 6 Collector thereafter passed the order dated 27.11.2014 (Annexure-O) earmarking the land in question for the construction of government offices and staff quarters in exercise of powers conferred under section 38 of the said Code. Being aggrieved by the said orders passed at Annexure-F and Annexure-O, the petitioner has filed the present petition.

6. The petitioner having filed the petition on 23.12.2014, notices came to be issued by the Court to the respondents on 24.12.2014, and both the parties were directed to maintain status quo qua the possession and use of the land in question. The respondents resisted the petition by filing the reply contending, inter alia, that the petitioner had filed the petition without exhausting the statutory remedy of filing appeal against the order of Mamlatdar, available to him and hence, the petition was not maintainable. It has also been contended that the petitioner having made encroachment over the land in question, the Mamlatdar had passed the impugned order after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner under Section 61 of the Code. It is also contended that the land in question is very valuable and has now been earmarked for the public purpose for construction of government offices and that the same cannot be regularized, merely because the petitioner had made encroachment. The petitioner has filed affidavit in rejoinder, in response to the said affidavit filed by the respondent authorities.

7. The Respondent authorities thereafter filed Civil Application being No. 13368 of 2015 seeki