Gujarat High Court
Irfan Mohammed Molvi vs Deputy Collector And Sub Divisional ... on 6 October, 2025
Author: Sunita Agarwal
Bench: Sunita Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1135/2025 ORDER DATED: 06/10/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1135 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2355 of 2025
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1135 of 2025
==========================================================
IRFAN MOHAMMED MOLVI
Versus
DEPUTY COLLECTOR AND SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE OLPAD &
ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR ASPI M KAPADIA(1865) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MS DELSHAD A KAPADIA(10238) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MS. HETAL PATEL, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
SHYAMAL K BHIMANI(8233) for the Respondent(s) No. 5
SIDDHARTH R KHESKANI(9483) for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3,4
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE
SUNITA AGARWAL
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY
Date : 06/10/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA
AGARWAL)
1. Mr. Siddharth R. Kheskani, learned advocate has put in
appearance on behalf of the respondent nos. 2 to 4.
2. Mr. Shyamal K. Bhimani, learned advocate appearing
for the respondent no. 5 would submit that on receipt of the
advance notice of the present appeal, he tried to contact his
client namely respondent no. 5 but he has not responded so
far. He is still awaiting for instructions from the respondent
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1135/2025 ORDER DATED: 06/10/2025
undefined
no. 5 to appear in the matter.
3. We may note, at the outset, that the respondent no. 5 is
the complainant at whose behest the proceedings under the
Land Grabbing Act, 2020 had been initiated.
4. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the
parties and perused the record, suffice it to note that in the
present Letters Patent Appeal, the challenge is to the
judgment and order dated 18.08.2025 passed by the learned
Single Judge whereby the writ petition has been dismissed
noticing that the evidence on record indicates that the
constructions had been raised by the appellant herein
without any development permission by constructing a gate
and compound wall, which are encroachments over a public
road.
5. The submission of Mr. Aspi Kapadia, learned counsel for
the appellant is that the entire proceeding against the
petitioner was initiated on the complaint filed by the
respondent no. 5 under the Land Grabbing Act, 2020 where
he had raised certain disputes with regard to a private road.
There is nothing on record which would establish the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1135/2025 ORDER DATED: 06/10/2025
undefined
allegations of encroachment of 6 feet Gamtal land on the
part of the appellant. The contention is that the
communications dated 08.01.2025 and 28.01.2025 sent by
the Deputy Collector to the Taluka Development Officer and,
in turn, by the Taluka Development Officer to the Sarpanch
and Talati cum Mantri; respectively, had resulted in issuing
final notice dated 15.02.2025 by the Taluka-cum- Mantri
and the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat concerned, asking
the appellant to remove alleged encroachments.
6. The further submission is that it was incumbent upon
the respondents to establish that the construction namely
gate and compound wall were raised by the petitioner on a
Gamtal road, which is a 6 ft. road. It is contended that as per
own admission of the respondent authorities, there exist no
map which would establish 6 feet public road or Gamtal land
existing on the spot, i.e. in front of the house of the
petitioner. Reference has been made to certain photographs,
appended at Annexure - 'A' to the writ petition to submit
that the petitioner is ready and willing to remove the gate
and the tiled passage created by him infront of the house.
However, in absence of any evidence of 6 feet road or
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1135/2025 ORDER DATED: 06/10/2025
undefined
Gamtal land, other encroachments cannot be directed to be
removed.
7. Testing all these submissions of the learned counsel for
the appellant, suffice it to record that in the proceedings for
removal of encroachment under Section 150 of the Gujarat
Panchayat Act, 1993, adequate opportunity of hearing has
been granted to the appellant. Notice dated 01.02.2025 had
been issued to which reply was submitted and on
consideration of the reply, the competent authority while
taking decision under Section 105 of the Gujarat Panchayat
Act, 1993 has reached at a conclusion that there exists
encroachments on a public road, made by the appellant and
the constructions raised on the spot are without any
development permission granted by the competent
authority.
8. Once this is the factual situation noted by the learned
Single Judge in the judgment impugned, we do not find any
reason to interfere. For any assertion of the appellant with
regard to the existence of 6 feet public road on the spot,
suffice it to note that the learned counsel for the appellant
could not demonstrate before us that the offending
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1135/2025 ORDER DATED: 06/10/2025
undefined
constructions were raised on the private property of the
petitioner, that too after seeking development permission
from the competent authority.
9. As the appellant has not been able to establish the
existence of offending constructions on the property owned
by the appellant, we do not find any good ground to
entertain the challenge. No interference is called for, the
appeal stands dismissed.
10. In view of dismissal of the appeal, the Civil Application
stands disposed of.
(SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ )
(D.N.RAY,J)
VARSHA DESAI
