(Per : HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA) By this Public Interest Litigation, the petitioners have prayed for a direction upon the respondent authorities for stopping establishment and construction activities of the respondent No. 12 of the alleged industrial unit at land bearing survey No. 141/2, 148/2/2 and 142/1 and the land adjacent thereto held by the respondent No.12 at village Nani Tambadi, with a further direction upon the respondents to initiate action against the respondent No.12 for breach committed by the said respondent. The petitioners have further prayed for a declaration that the construction work of respondent No.12 and the alleged transaction of the land in favour of the respondent No.12 are contrary to law, and thus respondent No.12 should be restrained from establishment of any industry at the said place.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the affidavit filed by the parties, it appears that the respondent No.12 is an outsider to the village. He purchased the property in question after complying with all the formalities required under the law, and even the local Village Panchayat has mutated his name and is also realizing tax from the respondent No.12. It further appears from the materials on record that the respondent No.12 has constructed a building, part of which is used as a godown for the purpose of storing bails of cotton and the other part, for running a 'gaushala'.
Mr. Patel, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners although tried to convince us that in the process of constructing the building, the respondent No.12 has created obstruction to the regular flow of water running through a local canal, which is the source of water for irrigation purpose to the locality, after going through the material placed before us, we are not impressed by such submission.
It appears from the records that part of the said building is used as a godown for the purpose of storage of bails of cotton. Such an activity cannot be said to be an 'industrial activity' in violation of law, as alleged by the petitioners.
Regarding the allegation of obstruction of flow of water in the canal, we have already pointed out that from the materials on record, we are not satisfied that any such activities have been carried out by the respondent No.12 which is impeding flow of water in the canal, used for agricultural activities in the area. However, if in future any such occasion arises, the concerned aggrieved persons can always resort to appropriate remedy available under law.
In view of what has been stated above, we do not find any reason to keep this matter pending any further, and we dispose of this application accordingly. Notice is discharged. No costs.
[BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA, ACTING C.J.] mathew [J.B.PARDIWALA. J.] Top