SCA/4346/1998 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 4346 of 1998 With SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 4345 of 1998 With SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 1178 of 1999 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI ============================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ============================================= KHATRI LALJIBHAI ALIAS LALCHAND UDAJI - Petitioner(s) Versus SECRETARY & 1 - Respondent(s) ============================================= Appearance : MR AD DESAI for Petitioner(s) : 1, MS REETA CHANDARANA ASST GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent(s) : 1 - 2. ============================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI Date : 21/10/2008 COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT These petitions arise out of similar factual background, therefore, they are heard together and disposed of by this common order. SCA/4346/1998 2/3 JUDGMENT The facts can be noted from Special Civil Application No.4345 of 1998. The petitioner herein admittedly occupies the small portion of the Government land on which he has put up his stall in which he is carrying on activities of watch repairing. He had applied to the Government for regularisation of his unauthorised occupation. His request, however, came to be turned down by the impugned order dated 21.06.1997 passed by the Revenue Secretary. In the impugned order, it is stated that the occupation of the petitioner is situated close to the S.T.Depot on the main road, due to which, there is narrowing of the road resulting into hindrance in smooth flow of the traffic. On this count, the authority was pleased to turn down the request of the petitioner. The facts of the other petitioners are more or less similar. Learned advocate Ms.Lopa Bhatt for the petitioners submitted that the respondents have under the similar situation regularised occupation of the other individuals. The petitioners are, however, not given same treatment. Learned AGP Ms.Reeta Chandarana for the respondents, however, opposed the petition and submitted that in order to avoid traffic conjunction, it is necessary that the stalls of the petitioners be removed. Apparently, the petitioners have encroached the Government land. They have no legal vested right to insist that such encroachment must be regularised, particularly, when it is pointed out that situation of the stalls is such that it would create traffic conjunction, the decision of the authority refusing the request of the petitioners cannot be said to be SCA/4346/1998 3/3 JUDGMENT arbitrary. One thing, however, appears that the petitioners are continued with their occupation since many years. Even if the request of the petitioners was to be accepted, they would have paid the market price and penalty thereon. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is provided that it will be open for the petitioners to make representation to the respondents seeking alternative allotment of the land for their stalls on payment of the current market price and other leviable charges. If the petitioners make such representation within four weeks from today, the same shall be examined in accordance with law and prevailing policy of the respondents. With the aforesaid direction, all three Special Civil Applications are disposed of. Rule stands discharged. Interim relief, if any, granted earlier, stands vacated. ( Akil Kureshi, J. ) kailash, p.s.