The Gujarat High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed alleging that a large chunk of Government waste lands / unused lands / kharaba lands are lying in district Patan and they have not been utilized for the purposes of allotment to landless labourers as per the scheme framed by the State Government.
The prayer in the petition is to issue direction to the respondents in the nature of mandamus commanding them to undertake the procedure for allotment of the lands on the basis of Notifications dated 14.2.2013 and 6.1.2014.
The counsel for the petitioner has invited attention of the Court to the affidavit filed by the Dy. Collector, Sami in response to the petition wherein it is stated that though the procedure for allotment of the waste land in district Patan has been completed by issuance of a public Notification dated 6.1.2014, but on the representations given by some villagers and Sarpanch of the village, the said notification has not been given effect.
The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that this stand of the Dy. Collector, Sami not to carry out the intent of the Government Resolution dated 1.11.2003 to dispose of the unused land/Government waste land, cannot be approved, inasmuch as, the Dy. Collector, Sami was required to act strictly in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the Government Resolution dated 1.11.2003. The contention is that the decision of the State Government to dispose of its waste land by allotting to the landless labourers has been put at hault at the instance of certain villagers and the then Sarpanch, which cannot be countenance.
Testing this submission of the counsel for the petitioner and having perused the material on record, the Division Bench of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Aniruddha P. Mayee noted that the petitioner herein cannot fall in the category of beneficiary who is entitled to allotment of Government waste land being landless labourer. None of the beneficiary of such lands are before the Court.
The petition has not been filed in the representative capacity for those landless labourers who are otherwise eligible for allotment of the Government waste land, as per the contention of the petitioner. Even otherwise, the stand of the Dy. Collector, Sami in the affidavit is clear that no one has an indefeasible right to seek allotment of the Government waste land as the policy was for the welfare of such citizens who are poor, downtrodden and in need of such welfare scheme and who are involved in agricultural activities. It is well within the domain of the State Government to dispose of its land as per its own wishes. No mandamus as such can be issued at the instance of the petitioner who is otherwise a labour contractor, whose credentials to file the instant petition seeking direction from this Court also cannot be ascertained.
The Bench noted that the notifications relied upon by the petitioner to seek directions in the nature of mandamus are stood cancelled as is evident from the statement made in the affidavit of the Dy. Collector, Sami wherein it is stated that both the notifications have been quashed after taking into consideration the law and order situation in the village concerned as also the representations made by the villagers.