S. K. KESHOTE, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner, by this special civil application, is praying for issuance of writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate, writ, direction or order, in the nature of certiorari declaring the action taken on 11th March 1999 at 3:30. p. m. demolishing the kutcha hut of the petitioner by the respondent -Nagar Palika as arbitrary, unjust, illegal, void and in breach of principles of natural justice. Second prayer has been made that during the pendency and final disposal of this special civil application, this Court may be pleased to issue an order of injunction restraining the respondent Nagar Palika from demolishing the Pan shop of the petitioner situated on the said land. Third prayer has been made that pending admission and final hearing of this petitioner, the petitioner be granted permission to construct the Kutchha hut on the said land temporarily to avoid hardships and inconvenience. Fourth prayer has been made that the respondent Nagar Palika be directed to restore the Kutchha hut on the said land of the petitioner. Fifth prayer has been made to pass an order calling upon the respondent Nagar Palika to pay the damage to the tune of Rs. 4000/= to the petitioner. ( 2 ) ). The facts of the case , in brief, as stated by the petitioner in the special civil application, are that the father of the petitioner is the owner of the land in dispute under a gift deed executed in his favour by his maternal uncle. It is case of the petitioner that the maternal uncle of the father of the petitioner had purchased this land from Kapadwanj nagar Palika in the year 1984. The petitioner is in possession of the said land. He is residing in a Kutchha hut on the said land and he is also having his Pan shop. The petitioner earlier having apprehension of his dispossession from the suit land by respondent Nagar Palika approached to this Court by filling Spicial Civil Application No. 6312 of 1995. In the said special civil application, the learned A. G. P. made a statement before this Court that if any action for removal of encroachment is undertaken,the same would be in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. In the said special civil application, the learned A. G. P. made a statement before this Court that if any action for removal of encroachment is undertaken,the same would be in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. On the statement of the learned A. G. P. , the petitioner has withdrawn that writ petition at that stage. This decision has been taken on 6th Oct. 1995. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent Nagar Palika was a party to the Special Civil Application No. 6312/95 and it knew well about the undertaking given by the Asstt. Gqvt. Advocate. It is the grievance of the petitioner that in spite of this undertaking given by the A. G. P. in the earlier proceedings on 11th march 1999, the respondent Nagar Palika had demolished the kutchha construction of the petitioner on the land in dispute without giving any show cause notice as contemplated under the provisions of the Gujrat public premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1972, as also contemplated under the Gujarat municipalities Act and without giving any opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. Hence this special civil application before this Court. ( 3 ) ). Though in the special civil application, the petitioner has not disclosed, but during the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to the notice of this Court, the following facts. After decision in the special Civil Application No. 6312 of 1995, the petitioner filed civil Suit in the Court of Civil Judge (S. D.), Nadiad, in respect of this very disputed land. In the suit, what the learned counsel for the petitioner urged that prayer has been made by petitioner to direct the Nagar Palika to execute the sale deed of land in dispute in favour of the father of the petitioner. He also informed to the Court that the suit has been filed jointly, both by the petitioner and his father in the Court of Civil Judge (S. D.), Nadiad. The learned counsel for the petitioner admits before this Court that Special Civil application No. 6312 of 1995 has been filed by the present petitioner only. So the petitioners father was not a party to aforesaid special civil application. The present special civil application is filled by petitioner only and not his father. The father of the petitioner is alive. The learned counsel for the petitioner admits before this Court that Special Civil application No. 6312 of 1995 has been filed by the present petitioner only. So the petitioners father was not a party to aforesaid special civil application. The present special civil application is filled by petitioner only and not his father. The father of the petitioner is alive. The father of the petitioner has not executed any document whatsoever to transfer his alleged right, title and interest which he possesses in the suit land in favour of the petitioner. ( 4 ) ). On the record of the special civil application, there is a document, Annexure-A which is, what the learned counsel for the petitioner contended, a resolution of the. Gram panchayat, Kapadvanj, under which it is resolved to transfer the land in dispute to the maternal uncle of the father of the petitioner. In pursuance of this resolution, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Rs. 3,420-20 has been deposited by the maternal uncle of the petitioners father towards the cost of disputed land in the office of Nagar palika, Kapadvanj. On the record of the special civil application, the petitioner has not produced any documentary evidence to show that the possession of the disputed land has been given to the maternal uncle of the petitioners father or to any other person, i. e. the petitioner or to his father. On being asked by the Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to satisfy this Court as to how the maternal uncle of petitioners father or the petitioners father has entered into possession of this disputed land. It is also a fact on which there is no dispute that in pursuace of the resolution, Annexure-A, the Nagar palika has not executed any sale-deed either in favour of the maternal uncle of the petitioners" father or the father of the petitioner or even the petitioner. From the map which has been annexed to the special civil application, prima-facie it appears to be a land part of the public road. From the Resolution of the Gram Panchayat also, it cleary borne out and which is also not disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner that the disputed land is part of the public road. From the map which has been annexed to the special civil application, prima-facie it appears to be a land part of the public road. From the Resolution of the Gram Panchayat also, it cleary borne out and which is also not disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner that the disputed land is part of the public road. In view of this fact, even if this resolution is there, no right, title or interest would have accrued to the maternal uncle of the petitioners father or his father or to the petitioner. Annexure -A is not a Resolution of the Gram panchayat alloting or transferring this land to the maternal uncle of the father of the petitioner. Under this resolution, the Nagar Palika authorised its President to sell this land to the maternal uncle of the father of petitioner. The petitioner has not produced on the record of this special civil application any order of the President of the Nagar Palika allotting or transferring this land to the maternal uncle of the father of the petitioner. So, on the record of this special civil application , there is no material available to prove, establish and show right, title or interest of maternal uncle of the father of the petitioner. Receipt of deposit of some amount with Nagar Palika is hardly of any substance or value. The possession of this land was also not given to any of the aforesaid three persons. Otherwise also, the learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to satisfy this Court as to how the Nagar Palika could have allotted the land in such manner and fashion. Even if it is taken that this land is not part of the public road for the time being, still the Nagar palika could not have transferred the land in favour of an individual in such manner. Where the Nagar Palika decides to transfer a land, then it has to adopt a reasonable mode and in case leaving apart the schemes to be framed for allotment of lands to the weaker sections of the society or SC/st community, the nornmal rule should have been to put the land by public auction and not by deal of this nature, which can only be said to be some sort of favour extended to the maternal uncle of the father of the petitioner. Otherwise also, when this land is part of the public road, even if it is taken that the land vests in the nagar Palika, the Nagar Palika has no power or authority what soever to transfer this land to the maternal uncle of the petitioner. The possession of this land has also not been delivered by the Nagar Palika to any of the persons aforesaid nor any sale-deed has been executed. It is a clear case of unauthorised occupation on the land of public road by the petitioner. It is unfortunate that the learned counsel for the State Government who was appearing in the Special Civil Application No. 6312 of 1995 has not brought to the notice of this Court this important aspect, otherwise, I have my own reservation that after the court would have come to know that this land is part of the public road, the Court would not have granted any relief in favour of the petitioner. ( 5 ) ). The petitioner has already approached to the Civil Court, and the learned counsel for the petitioner admitted that in the Civil Suit, the petitioner and his father moved an application for grant of interim relief of the nature that the Nagar Palika may be restrained from demolishing their hut or dispossessing them from the suit land but such interim injunction has not been granted by the learned trial Court in favour of the petitioner and his father. The learned counsel for the petitioner, on being asked by the Court, admitted on instructions from the petitioner, that against the order of the learned trial Court passed below Exh. 5, the petitioner and his father have not filed appeal before the first appellat court. If we go by the substance of the matter, it is a clear case where the Nagar Palika has not passed any resolution transferring the land in the name of maternal Uncle of the petitioner and otherwise also for which it has no authority or any competence. The learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any provisions from the municipalities Act or the rules framed thereunder which empower the Nagar Palika to transfer the land, which is a part of the public road, to the citizens. The learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any provisions from the municipalities Act or the rules framed thereunder which empower the Nagar Palika to transfer the land, which is a part of the public road, to the citizens. The maternal uncle of the petitioners father had also no right, title or Interest in the land nor the possession thereof has been handed over to him nor any sale deed or possession receipt has been executed. When that person has no right, title or interest over the disputed land, he could not have passed any valid and better right, title or interest in respect of the said land either to the petitioners father or to the petitioner than what he himself was possessing. Further, the petitioner also could not have got better right, title and intrest in the disputed land under the alleged action of the Nagar Palika. It is a clear case where this land has been unauthorisedly occupied by petitioner and even if technically, the Courts direction may not have been complied with, as the petitioner has no valid right, title and interest over the land, no exception to the action of the nagar Palika can be taken by this Court sitting under Art. 226 of the Constitution of india. This Court is not sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution to protect category of persons who are in unauthorized occupation of land which is a part of the public road. If it is taken that the maternal uncle of the petitioners father deposited some amount with the Nagar Palika towards the alleged cost of this land that will not confer any valid right title and interest in the land to the petitioner or his father for the reasons aforesaid. ( 6 ) ). There is yet another ground on the basis of which this writ petitioner cannot be entertained by this Court. The petitioner otherwise also is not having any right, title or interest in the disputed land and this special civil application at his instance is not maintainable. This Court cannot protect this unauthorized possession of the petitioner on the land of public road under Article 226 of the Constitution under its extra ordinary equitable jurisdiction. ( 7 ) ). In the result, this special civil application fails and the same is dismissed. .