N. N. MATHUR, J. ( 1 ) RULE. Mr. R. P. Solanki, learned A. G. P. waives service of Rule on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2. Mr. BB Desai, learned counsel waives service of Rule on behalf of respondent No. 4. ( 2 ) THE petitioner are said to be members of the Gram Committee specially constituted for the purpose of representing their matter pertaining to the plots of land allotted by the government under the scheme of providing land for landless laboures under the resolution of Pal Gram Panchayat dated 27. 6. 1989. It is stated that the Government of gujarat introduced a scheme for providing small plots of land admeasuring 100 sq. yds. each to the landless labourers for the purpose of constructing small houses for dwelling purpose. A Committee was also constituted to scrutinise the applications. After scrutinising all the applications, the Committee prepared a final list consisting of names of 190 persons. It is also stated that respondent No. 3- Gram Panchayat of Village Pal passed a Resolution dated 30th August, 1986 to the effect that land of Block Nos. 397 and 398 bearing Revenue Survey Nos. 597 and 598 admeasuring about 13,000 sq. metres will suffice the purpose as it falls within the category of Government Gauchar land. It is also stated that respondent No. 4- Taluka Develpment Officer forwarded the complete papers along with the proposal to the Collector of Surat for necessary sanction and approval. The collector enquired with the authorities of Surat Urban Development Authority (suda for short) regarding the same. SUDA did not recommend allotment of land bearing survey Nos. 597 and 598, as it was falling within agricultural zone and opined that any land falling in an agricultural zone cannot be allotted for the purpose of construction. In view of the opinion expressed by the SUDA, the Collector refused to accept the recommendation made by the Gram Panchayat. The Collector accordingly directed the gram Panchayat to immediately remove the encroachment made over the said land. It is alleged that suddenly on 16. 6. 1993, without prior notice or without affording any opportunity, under the orders of the Collector, a demolition drive the orders of the collector, a demolition drive was launched to remove them from the plots. ( 3 ) MR. It is alleged that suddenly on 16. 6. 1993, without prior notice or without affording any opportunity, under the orders of the Collector, a demolition drive the orders of the collector, a demolition drive was launched to remove them from the plots. ( 3 ) MR. J. B. Pardiwala, learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioner were put in possession over theplot in pursuance of resolution of the Panchayat and as such their possession of the plot cannot be said to be that of a trespasser, simply because the Collector did not approve the resolution. The learned counsel further contends that in any case, the respondents were required to adopt a reasonable, fair and just procedure. The learned counsel places reliance on a decision of this Court in Nehru Marg Cabin association vs. Modasa Nagar Palika, reported in 1988 (1) GLR 441 . ( 4 ) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the parties, in my considered view, this petition deserves to be dismissed. In Nehru Marg Cabin case, this Court following Olgra tellis case (A. I. R. 1981 SC 180) = 1981 (2) SCR 516 (SC) = 1981 (1) SCC 608 (SC) = 1981 (1) Scale 9 (SQ =1981 Crlr (SC) 437 and Francis Coralis case (A. I. R. 1981 SC 746) = 1981 (2) SCR 516 (SC) = 1981 (1) SCC 608 (SC) = 1981 (1) Scale 9 (SC) =1981 crlr (SC) 437 held that while enforcing the law, a reasonable, fair and just procedure should be adopted. Their Lordships further held that, it will be for the court to decide whether the procedure adopted is reasonable, fair and just or otherwise. ( 5 ) IN the present petition, the petitioners have not been able to show as to how the procedure adopted was unreasonable, or unjust. It fairness is shown by the concerned authority, no breach of violation of principle of natural justice can be complained of. ( 6 ) IN this context, reference may also be made to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Board of Mining Examination vs. Ramjee, reported in A. I. R. 1977 SC 965= 1977 UJ (SC) 184 = 1977 (2) SCR 904 (SC) = 1977 (2) SCC 256 . Their Lordships observed as follows:"natural justice is no unruly horse, no lurking land mine, nor a judicial cure-all. Their Lordships observed as follows:"natural justice is no unruly horse, no lurking land mine, nor a judicial cure-all. If fairness is shown by the decision- maker to the man proceeded against the form, features and the fundamentals of such essential processuals propriety being conditioned by the facts and circumstances of each situation, no breach of natural justice can be complained of. Unnatural expansion of natural justice, without reference to the adminstrative realities and other factors of a given case, can be exasperating. " ( 7 ) IN the instant case, Gram Panchayat of Village Pal selected land bearing survey nos. 597 and 598, suitable for allotment to petitioners for construction of houses. This recommendation was not Accepted by the Collector as the said land is an Agricultural land and, it cannot be allotted for residential use. Before the acceptance of proposal by competent authority if the petitioner had taken possession, they must thank themselves. The Collector, while rejecting the recommendation by order dated 6. 10. 1989, directed the panchayat to rermoye the encroachment. The petitioners filed suit in 1989 and it is stated in the petition that the suit is still pending. After 4 years, in June 1993, action was taken of removal. Thus it is unjust to complain that the demolition drive was sudden and without notice. Thus, there is no merit in the petition. ( 8 ) AT this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that the petitioners have requested the authorities to change the zone of subject land from Agricultural to non-agricultural, and regularise the construction on the land. Thus, there is no merit in the petition. ( 8 ) AT this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that the petitioners have requested the authorities to change the zone of subject land from Agricultural to non-agricultural, and regularise the construction on the land. In view of the matter, it is considered expedient to dispose of this writ petition with following directions: (A) The State Government shall dispose of the representations submitted by the petitioners, if any, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order; (B) In case no representation has been made or according to the State government no such representation has been received, the petitioners are allowed to submit fresh representations to the State Government within a period of two weeks mentioning on the top representation under the direction of the High Court"; (C) In case the petitioners desire to be heard in person, they will gave name of one person who will be heard; (D) In case such representation does not find favour with and is rejected, the representative of the petitioners shall be informed of the decision and the petitioner shall not be is possessed for a period of one month from the date of communication of such decision. Status-quo shall be maintained till one month after the decision on the representation referred to above is communicated. This writ petition is dismissed accordingly. Rule discharged. There shall be no order as to costs. .