The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the petitioners to submit relevant documents to establish their entitlement to the land in question under Section 105 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993.

ORDER :

1. In the present writ petitions, the petitioners have sought a direction for setting aside the order of the respondent No.4-District Collector, Rajkot dated 13.12.2021 and also have sought prayer to stay the consequential notices dated 06.02.2023 issued to the petitioners under the provisions of Section 105 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 (for short “the Act”). It is curious to note that the petitioners have not challenged the notices dated 06.02.2023 issued to them.

2. At the outset, learned advocate Mr.Dagli appearing for the petitioners has submitted that since the District Collector has exercised his jurisdiction under the provision of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879 (for short “the Code”) for the original land being allotted for cultivation by the State Government, the present writ petitions are filed challenging the order passed by the Collector. He has submitted that the impugned order dated 13.12.2021 has been passed in view of the order dated 09.08.2021 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition (PIL) No.96 of 2021. It is submitted that though the Division Bench, in paragraph No.6, has directed the District Collector, Rajkot to take appropriate decision, after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties, the concerned petitioners are not heard by the Collector and the impugned order has been passed.

2.1 It is submitted that pursuant to the aforesaid order, the concerned Gram Panchayat i.e. Pardi Gram Panchayat has issued show-cause notices to the petitioners under the provisions of Section 105 of the Act asking them to produce relevant documents with regard to the land in question within a period of seven days. He has submitted that in fact, the land in question, for which the notices have been issued, legally belong to the petitioners. It is submitted that the original land, which was allotted for cultivation by the State Government thereafter, in some of the cases, after obtaining permission of the State Government and also on the payment of requisite premium, has been sold to the petitioners. He has submitted that all the petitioners purchased the plots accordingly in Satyam Park Society, after undertaking necessary legal procedure and hence, since 2014 onwards, the petitioners are in possession of such plots/lands and, therefore, the impugned order passed by the Collector was uncalled for. It is submitted that water connection and other facilities are also given to the petitioners. He has submitted that if opportunity would have been given to them, they would have pointed out all the relevant documents to the Collector. Thus, it is submitted that the impugned order may be set aside and the show-cause notices issued to the petitioners may be stayed.

3. Per contra, learned AGP appearing for the respondent authorities has submitted that the impugned orders do not require any interference at this stage since the petitioners are only called upon to produce necessary documents showing their entitlement of the land in question. While placing reliance on Section 105 of the Act, he has submitted that the same is to be read with Rule 55 of the Gram Panchayats (Procedure) Rules, 1997 (for short “the Rules”), which provides for detailed process of issuance of the show-cause notices after considering the reply and affording personal hearing to the affected persons. He has submitted that the District Collector, after considering all the relevant aspects and after hearing the affected parties and considering the District Inspector Land Record (DILR) reports of the land in question, has ultimately asked the concerned Taluka Development Officer (TDO) as well as Talati and District Development Officer (DDO) to undertake necessary exercise and hence, the Gram Panchayat has issued notices under Section 105 of the Act calling upon the petitioners to submit all the relevant documents for verification. It is thus, submitted that the present writ petitions are premature at this stage and the same may not