Bela M. Trivedi, J.:— The petition has been filed by the petitioners, invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the legality and validity of the order dated 2.7.2014/30.6.2014 passed by the respondent No. 2 Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals) and the order dated 9.7.2013 passed by the respondent No. 3 Collector and further praying for regularizing the occupation of the petitioners on the land in question.
2. As per the case of the petitioners, they belong to very poor class of society and are Harijans by caste. According to them, they are in possession of the land bearing Survey No. 193 paiki of Village Mayapar, Taluka Vadia, District Amreli, since many years and are carrying on agricultural operations on the said land. In the year 1985, the respondent No. 4 Mamlatdar had initiated proceedings under Section 61 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879 (hereinafter referred to as “the Revenue Code”) read with the Gujarat Land Revenue Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Rules”) and had imposed penalty on the petitioners for encroachment made on the said land. The petitioners thereafter had made an application for regularization of their occupation on the said land before the respondent No. 3 Collector. According to the petitioners, the Collector had passed the order dated 15.7.1994 regularizing the said occupation of the petitioners, subject to the payment of Rs. 28,000/- each. Since the said amount was on higher side, the petitioners had challenged the said order before the respondent No. 2, Revisional Authority, which was allowed by the respondent No. 2, who remanded the matter to the respondent No. 3 Collector for deciding the matter afresh. The respondent Collector, however, again passed the order on 31.12.1998 maintaining the market value of the land at Rs. 28,000/-. Since the petitioners were very poor, they could not comply with the said order and pay the said amount. The petitioners thereafter made an application on 13.1.2011 agreeing to pay the said amount of Rs. 28,000/- for regularization. However, the Collector rejected the said request vide the order dated 11.4.2011 on the ground that the petitioners had given their consent after 12 years. The petitioners again made representation on 2.5.2011 giving all details and grounds for regularization, however, the respondent No. 3 Collector vide the order dated 9.7.2013 rejected the said application on the ground that in view of the order passed by the Supreme Court, gauchar land could not be allotted to the petitioners. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners had preferred the revision application before the respondent No. 2, who vide the impugned order dated 2.7.2014 rejected the said revision. Hence, the present petition is filed by the petitioners.
3. Mr. Satyam Chhaya, learned Counsel for the petitioners, conceding the fact that the petitioners had not paid the amount as directed by the Collector for regularization of the land in question, submitted that the petitioners being very poor, they could not pay the said amount. He further submitted that the respondent authorities had misinterpreted the order of the Supreme Court passed in the case of Jagpal Singh v. State of Punjab, reported in (2011) 11 SCC 396, inasmuch as no such direction was given by the Supreme Court as sought to be misinterpreted by the Collector. Mr. Chhaya, learned Counsel for the petitioners has also relied upon the Government Resolutions to submit that the Collector has wide powers to regularize the encroachment made by the persons belonging to the lower strata of society.
4. However, the learned AGP has resisted the petition by submitting that as the petitioners having made illegal encroachment over the gauchar land, the same could not be regularized.
5. In the instant case, the controversy moves in a very narrow compass as to whether the petitioners are entitled to get their occupation over the land in question regularized or not. It is not disputed by the petitioners that they had made encroachment over the land in question, which was reserved as gauchar land. The only contention raised by them is that at the relevant time they were not able to make the payment as directed by the Collector for regularization of the said occupation. However, the said contention cannot be accepted. Not only that the petitioners had failed to make the payment as directed by the Collector for regularization, but it appears that the petitioners had made encroachment over the gauchar land, which could not be regularized in view of the observations made by the Apex Court in the case of Jagpal Singh v. State of Punjab (supra) to the effect that the regularization be permitted only in exceptional cases. In the instant case, the encroachment having been made by the petitioners on the gauchar land, the respondent authorities have rightly rejected the request for regularization of the same. The Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned orders passed by the respondent authorities.
6. In that view of the matter, the Court does not find any merit in the petition. Hence, the petition is dismissed. Notice is discharged. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated.