Gujarat HC Issues Notice To District Development Officer For Not Filing Own Report On Encroachment Removal From Grazing Land In Village

The Gujarat High Court on Friday (February 7) issued notice to the District Development Officer (DDO), Banaskantha to explain why proceedings for deliberate "non-compliance" of its earlier orders asking the officer to inform on the steps taken for removal of encroachments on Gaucher (grazing) land in Salla village be not taken against him

The Division Bench of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Pranav Trivedi observed, “Having pursed the affidavit of the District Development Officer (DDO), Banaskanth, District Panchayat, Palanpur dated 01.02.2025, it may be noted that by means of the order dated 17.01.2025, noticing the averments in the affidavit of the Collector and District Magistrate, Banaskantha dated 28.11.2024 based on measurement exercise conducted by the District Inspector of Land Record, Palanpur at Banaskantha (DILR), a communication dated 19.11.2024 was sent by the Collector to DDO, Banaskantha issuing directions to take immediate steps under Section 105 of Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 for removal of encroachments over the lands in question which is a Gaucher land for grazing cattle. We had also clarified that in case the response of the DDO, Banasakanth about the action taken on the communication dated 19.11.2024 sent by the Collector, Banaskantha, is not brought before us, we would constrain to issue notice for the non-compliance of the directions contained in the order dated 06.12.2024.”

Taking note of the DDO's affidavit the court noted that while reports had been submitted to him by the Taluka Development Officer and the Deputy District Panchayat officer, however the fact remained that nothing had been done by the DDO "at his own level". The court noted that the DDO merely referred to the reports by his subordinate. 

The court thereafter dictated,  “Inspite of our directions in two orders 6.12.2024 and 17.01.2025 a cursory report has been submitted by DDO, where apart from submitting the report of the officers subordinate to him no report of his own has been submitted by DDO to the effect that all encroachments...have been removed...We therefore issue notice to the officer posted as District Development Officer, to explain as to why the proceedings for the deliberate and wilful non-compliance of the order of this Court be not initiated against him”.

At the outset the counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that he had filed an affidavit regarding the encroachments done by the "sitting Sarpanch" of Salla Gram Panchayat and his relatives.

Meanwhile the counsel appearing for District Development Officer (DDO), Banaskantha contended that a reply has been filed pointing out stage wise development wherein it is stated the encroachments which will be removed in a phased manner, furthermore, the report stated there is no statement regarding the encroachment by Sarpanch or his relatives.

The Court at this stage orally asked, “Where is the report Mr. Munshaw? The affidavit says that the Taluka Development Officer, Palanpur, Taluka Panchayat addressed a detailed report dated 30.01.25 to the deponent, after referring to his earlier reports, what does that mean? Mr. Counsel this is a recent report? Any inspection is done? This report is reiteration of past report or it is based on the fresh inspection done?”

DDO's counsel said that it is a recent report and it is based on a fresh inspection on January 29 and 30.

The Court then orally said, “Mr. Counsel, we are asking you where is the report appended with this affidavit? You are referring (us) to the paragraph, we are asking you for the report. Mr. Counsel, please don't try to play games with the Court. These officers are doing this. We will issue notice to them personally, making them responsible.”

Counsel appearing for the DDO then requested the Court that he will put it to his client that there should be a report. The Counsel then urged the court to give him one opportunity and adjourn the matter to next Friday and assured the Court that the affidavit will be filed with all the reports.

The Court at this point orally remarked, “Don't try to bring any affidavit which brings us incomplete fact and this cannot be done by the officers of the State that is loud and clear. Otherwise, we will issue notice of non-compliance of our order and this is what has been done. Why do you file this kind of affidavit Mr. Munshaw? If you are making a statement on oath...you are making a statement on the basis of a report, that report must be part of the record. We are issuing notice to this officer. In the last order we have said that if the response is not received then we would be constraint to issue notice for non-compliance. And, this response is incomplete, it is as good as response not received. Let him come forward and answer. No, we are sorry. We will deal with the affidavit, how this affidavit has been filed."

The Counsel then stated there is "no intention" of the authority to (mislead the Court).

The Division Bench at this point orally said, “Don't say intention, we are not about their intention, they know if the Court of law is asking them, they know how to file it. How to respond to a Court and if the officer doesn't know how to respond to a court, then he is not supposed to be there. We are sorry and we are issuing notice.”

As per the order dated 17.01.2025, the Court observed that the Collector directed the District Development Officer (DDO) to submit a response regarding the steps taken under the Gujarat Panchayat Act, 1993 for removal of the alleged encroachments on Gaucher (grazing) land in the village Salla, Banaskantha by the sitting Sarpanch. Furthermore, the Court noted Despite the Court's order on 06.01.2025, there was no update to any actions taken by the DDO, District Panchayat, Banaskantha at Palanpur as required in compliance with the orders of the Court.

The Court in its 17^th January order noted, “We, therefore, post the matter on 07.02.2025 making it clear that in case, on the next date fixed, no response of the District Development Officer, Banaskantha about the action taken on the communication dated 19.11.2024 sent by the Collector, Banaskantha is brought before us, we would be constrained to issue notice for non-compliance of the directions contained in the order dated 06.12.2024.”

The Court then listed the matter on February 14. 

Case Title: Mulchandbhai Motibhai Prajapati vs State of Gujarat

Case Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Guj) 28