1. Rule. Ms. Asmita Patel, learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service on behalf of respondent no.1, Mr. Manish Patel waives service on behalf of respondent nos. 2 and 3 and Mr. Vaibhav Sheth waives service on behalf of respondent no.4.
2. Considering the prayers made in the petition the Court had issued notice for final disposal vide order dated 11.10.2012.
3. The petitioner by way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has prayed for the following reliefs :
(“A) THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLESED TO direct the Circle Officer of Prantij Taluka Panchayat determine the obstruction and encroachments of village Sonasana Prantij and thereafter direct to the Respondents remove the same.
(B) THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLESED TO direct the Respondent No.2 initiated the inquiry and proceeding for suspending officer of Panchayat, who has made encroachments and obstruction, for the interest justice.
(C) THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLESED TO direct the Respondent no.4 to decide the applications of petitioner and take appropriate action for removing encroachment, for the interest of justic
(D) Pending admission hearing and till final disposal of present petition THIS HONORABLE COURT WOULD BE PLEASED TO direct to the Respondents to take action as per application/representation dated 04.08.12, in the interest of justice.
(E) THIS HONORABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO grant such other and further relief/s as may be deemed fit, just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.”
Mr. Mansuri, on instructions, does not press prayer (B).
4. In response to the notice issued by this Court Mr. Manish Patel for respondent nos. 2 and 3 states that respondent no.2 authority had already initiated proceedings and report has already been prepared by respondent no.3 and the same is in process on being submitted to respondent no.4 which is the authority which has to take actions under the provisions of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993. Mr. Manish Patel further on instructions states that respondent no.3 shall earmark the portion which is affected latest by 31.1.2013. Mr. Vaibhav Sheth for respondent no. 4, on instructions, states that as soon as the respondent nos. 2 and 3 would earmark the portion which is to be removed, respondent no.4 shall issue notices to all the affected parties latest by 15.2.2013. Mr. Sheth further states that after hearing affected parties, respondent no.4 shall take appropriate decision on such notice in accordance with law as early as possible but latest by 30.4.2013.
5. With this observations, the petition is partly allowed to the aforesaid extent only. It is however made clear that this Court has not opined anything on merits and it would be open for the authorities to take appropriate decision in accordance with law only after giving an opportunity of being heard to those who are affected by any such action that may be initiated by the respondent authorities. Rule made absolute to the aforesaid extent with no order as to costs. Direct service permitted.
Sd/-
(R.M. Chhaya, J.) M.M.BHATT