Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:

1. The de-reservation of Gochar land must be carried out in accordance with the procedures prescribed by the relevant statutes and rules, including issuing public notices and inviting objections prior to de-reservation (!) (!) .

2. Once Gochar land is de-reserved following due process, the government is permitted to utilize the land for any purpose, including residential, commercial, or industrial uses (!) (!) .

3. The process of de-reservation includes assessing whether the land is no longer required for its original purpose, whether it can serve its purpose, or whether it exceeds the reasonable requirement, following the principles laid down in the law (!) (!) (!) .

4. In the case at hand, there was surplus Gochar land available in the village, and the land in question had lost its character as Gochar land, justifying its de-reservation (!) .

5. The authorities followed the prescribed procedures, including public notices and field verification, and there was no violation of the law in the de-reservation process (!) (!) .

6. The purpose for which the land was de-reserved in this case—providing a passage to a retail outlet—falls within the permissible scope of use after de-reservation, as the law allows the land to be used for any purpose once de-reserved (!) .

7. The contention that no notices were issued prior to de-reservation is unfounded, as notices were indeed issued and objections, if any, were invited and considered (!) (!) .

8. The calculation of surplus Gochar land was correctly performed according to the statutory formulas, and the available surplus justified the de-reservation (!) .

9. The law emphasizes that de-reservation should be done only under proper legal procedures, and the authorities in this case adhered to those procedures, making the de-reservation lawful (!) .

10. The case law cited by the petitioners is distinguishable from the present case, as the facts and legal circumstances differ, particularly regarding the surplus land and the loss of Gochar character (!) .

11. Overall, the court found no illegality or irregularity in the de-reservation process and dismissed the writ petition accordingly (!) .

These points encapsulate the legal reasoning and factual findings relevant to the de-reservation of Gochar land in this case.