Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 665 (GUJ)

YOGESH MADANLAL SHARMA & 3 v. COLLECTOR & 3

2009-10-09

A.L.DAVE, K.A.PUJ

body2009
COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ) 1. Since common issue is involved in both these petitions and since both these petitions were heard together, the same are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. 2. The Special Civil Application No.5150 of 2004 is filed by four petitioners challenging the order passed by the District Collector, Banaskantha on 2.4.2004 holding therein that on Dhanera-Deesa road, encroachment was made by the petitioners and hence the same are required to be removed by following due procedure. It was also ordered that the procedure under Section 66 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code be initiated for breach of conditions and accordingly intimation was given to the Dy. Collector to initiate proceedings. 3. The Special Civil Application No.6813 of 2009 is filed by the petitioner challenging the notice dated 19.6.2009 issued by Dhanera Municipality for removal of encroachment on Dhanera-Deesa road. 4. In Special Civil Application No.5150 of 2004, this Court has passed an order on 26.4.2004 observing therein that since the impugned order has been passed in pursuance of the direction given by this Court in Special Civil Application No.2425 of 2004, it would be proper to place this matter alongwith Special Civil Application No.2425 of 2004. 5. The Special Civil Application No.2425 of 2004 was heard and disposed of by the Division Bench of this Court on 13.5.2009. Since no one on behalf of the petitioners was present on that day, the petition was dismissed for default. After its restoration, notice was issued for the first time on 26.6.2009. Ad-interim relief restraining the respondent from demolishing disputed construction was granted. The same is continued till petition is finally heard. 6. In Special Civil Application NO.6813 of 2004 notice was issued on 8.7.2009 and it was ordered to be heard alongwith Special Civil Application No.5150 of 2004. Ad-interim relief was granted restraining the respondent from demolishing disputed construction. This interim relief is continued till the petition is finally heard. 7. It is the case of the petitioners of Special Civil Application NO.5150 of 2004 that they have purchased the land in question from the respondent No.4 i.e. Rasiklal Hansraj Shah, who is the petitioner in Special Civil Application No.6813 of 2009. The petitioner No.1 has purchased the land being Survey No.161/1/A of Survey No.3116, by entering into three separate sale deeds. The petitioner No.1 has purchased the land being Survey No.161/1/A of Survey No.3116, by entering into three separate sale deeds. The petitioners No.2 to 4 have also purchased the land by entering into separate registered sale deeds. The petitioner No.1 has started his hospital on the said land in the name and style of Dr. Sharma Arogyanidhi Hospital. The petitioner No.1 is said to have obtained all necessary permissions and also stated to have got the plan approved. The petitioner has been paying water tax, house tax and other leviable taxes as and when demanded. In 1994 the petitioner No.1 was granted permission for construction and while granting permission it was stated that the petitioner could start his construction by keeping 27.5 ft distance from the center point. It has also been decided to have the width of road of 55 ft. and, therefore, the permission was granted for construction at a distance of 30 ft. away from the center point as per the permission on the North side from plot of the petitioner. The petitioner constructed the hospital having 10 bed including facilities of x-ray, laboratory, medical store, canteen and general store. 8. It is alleged in the petition that because of certain internal disputes and only with a view to pressurize the respondent No.4, a public interest litigation was filed in this Court, being Special Civil Application No.2425 of 2004, wherein it was contended that some encroachment was made on Deesa-Dhanera road and because of that people could not get the free access to their house and they also create traffic problems. The notice was issued in the said petition on 24.2.2004 to the petitioners, inter alia stating therein that as Dhanera-Deesa road is of 100 ft. the encroachment made on the said road is required to be removed. In view of the said notices, all the petitioners preferred Civil Application before this Court in Special Civil Application No.2425 of 2004 for their impleadment. The petitioners were impleaded as party respondents and also order of status quo was granted. This Court, however, directed the Collector to look into the grievance raised by the petitioner of that petition as well as the present petitioners. Pursuant to the said order of this Court, the hearing was fixed before the Collector, before whom the petitioners have also filed their written .reply alongwith necessary documents. This Court, however, directed the Collector to look into the grievance raised by the petitioner of that petition as well as the present petitioners. Pursuant to the said order of this Court, the hearing was fixed before the Collector, before whom the petitioners have also filed their written .reply alongwith necessary documents. The Collector has passed an order on 2.4.2004 holding therein that the petitioners have made certain encroachments as indicated in the said order and directed the Dy. Collector, Deesa to initiate proceeding under Section-66 of Bombay Land Revenue Code. 9. It is this order of the Collector which is under challenge in this petition. 10. Mr.Y.N.Oza, learned Senior Counsel appearing with Mr.Ashish Dagli, learned advocate for the petitioners, has submitted that the petitioners have made huge investment and they have purchased the land from the respondent No.4. The construction was made by them on their own land and no encroachment was made by any of the petitioners. He has further submitted that the construction was made after getting necessary approval from the respondent Municipality. The dispute is with regard to the width of the road and since the respondents are taking the width of the road at 100 ft. the construction of the petitioners is considered to be an illegal construction and the petitioners are treated as encroachers on the public road. He has further submitted that there is no evidence whatsoever which establishes that the width of the road was ever contemplated to be 100 ft. 11. Mr.Oza further submitted that new provision has been introduced in Section 65(2) of the Bombay Land Revenue Code on 1.8.1989, and as per the said amendment, the land in question was under the jurisdiction of Dhanera Rural Area. At that time, Dhanera Nagarpalika was not in existence. Hence, as per the amendment introduced in Section 65(2), it was not necessary to obtain permission of Collector, in case of residential use of any land. No action was, therefore, taken under Section 65(1). The original owner/respondent No.4 divided land in different residential plots and sold out the same to different persons. All these plots have been given different City Survey Number and property cards have been given to each individual plot holders. No action was, therefore, taken under Section 65(1). The original owner/respondent No.4 divided land in different residential plots and sold out the same to different persons. All these plots have been given different City Survey Number and property cards have been given to each individual plot holders. He has further submitted that on Survey No.120 which was adjacent to Survey No.161, construction was made with permission of Nagarpalika and the width of the road is about 50 ft. Even Nagarpalika has also passed the Resolution in the year 2004 in its general Board being the Resolution No.78/2 wherein width of the road is considered as 60 ft. The photographs produced also specifically reveal that width of the road in the adjoining Survey number was kept as 50 ft. and certain complexes are also regularized on the same road. He has further submitted that even as per the map of property prepared by office of DILR refers to the road is village approach road and the width is kept as 50 ft. He has, therefore, submitted that the respondent Nagarpalika has conveniently taken the stand that the width of the road is proposed to be 100 ft. Mr.Oza has, therefore, submitted that there is no justification in the order of the Collector to direct the demolition of the petitioners' construction treating the same as encroachment on public road. 12. Mr.Oza in support of his submissions that no proper notice was issued to the petitioners and the notice issued was very vague and ambiguous and hence the order of respondent authorities deserves to be quashed and set aside, has relied on the decisions of (1) Food Corporation of India Vs. State of Punjab and others (2001) 1 SCC 291 (2) Canara Bank and others Vs. Debasis Das and others, (2003) 4 SCC 557 (3) Madhavrao Scindia (Dead) By Lrd. Vs. Ramesh Jatav and others, (2006) 1 SCC 379 (4) Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore Vs. Brindavan Beverages (P) Ltd., and others, (2007) 5 SCC 388 (5) Shri B. D. Gupta Vs. State of Haryana, 3 SCC 149. 13. An affidavit-in-reply is filed on behalf of the respondent No.3 ? Dhanera Nagarpalika. Mr.Yogesh Thakkar, learned advocate appears on behalf of Nagarpalika. Ramesh Jatav and others, (2006) 1 SCC 379 (4) Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore Vs. Brindavan Beverages (P) Ltd., and others, (2007) 5 SCC 388 (5) Shri B. D. Gupta Vs. State of Haryana, 3 SCC 149. 13. An affidavit-in-reply is filed on behalf of the respondent No.3 ? Dhanera Nagarpalika. Mr.Yogesh Thakkar, learned advocate appears on behalf of Nagarpalika. First of all he has disputed the letter dated 29.3.1994 produced by the petitioner and claim on the basis of that letter that the petitioner No.1 was permitted to put up construction over a land in question. Mr.Thakkar has submitted that the said letter purported to have been written by the erstwhile Dhanera Nagarpanchayat does not exist in the records of the Panchayat. Even the dispatch register does not have such number and upon verifying relevant register it was found that the said letter was not written by the Nagar Panchayat. He has, therefore, submitted that the said letter is concocted one and the petitioner has tried to mislead the Court on the strength of the said letter. He has further submitted that the petitioners have put on construction on the land belonging to Nagar Panchayat under the guise that the said part of land is purchased by them from respondent No.4. The land in question upon which encroached construction was erected was acquired by the State Government prior to more than 50 years for the purpose of laying down 100 ft. wide road by paying compensation to the original owner as required under the law. The office of DILR, District Collector and office of the respondent Nagarpalika have verified the aforesaid facts from the records available at all the relevant offices and it reveals that the land in question is a public property and kept reserved for the purpose of laying down 100 ft. road. He has further submitted that the Deesa-Dhanera approach road is proposed to have width of 50 ft. at the Northern end and 100 ft. at the Southern end. The Northern end is situated towards The Dhanera Railway Station whereas the Southern end is situated towards Tharad- Deesa highway. The Deesa-Dhanera approach road is main entrance of Dhanera city from the highway. The approach road towards highway is having width of 100 ft. whereas towards the city side it divides into two separate roads having width of approximately 50 ft. each. The Deesa-Dhanera approach road is main entrance of Dhanera city from the highway. The approach road towards highway is having width of 100 ft. whereas towards the city side it divides into two separate roads having width of approximately 50 ft. each. The land bearing Survey No.161/1/B and 161/1/A are situated adjacent to the highway and, therefore they have facing of road having width of 100 ft. 14. Mr.Thakkar has further submitted that the State Government acquired 1 Acre 37 Guntha from the land bearing Survey No.161/1 for the purpose of laying down 100 ft. wide road. In support of his submission he referred to the register showing land acquired for the road from Survey No.160/1 and 120/2. The owner of the land bearing Survey No.161/1/A sold part of the land to different persons by dividing the agricultural land into plots of various size without obtaining necessary permission for using agricultural land for nonagricultural purpose and also without getting converted the land into old tenure from new tenure. The petitioners subsequently purchased plots of land from the land bearing Survey No.161/1/A. The petitioners put up part of the construction on the land acquired by the State Government for the purpose of laying down road having proposed width of 100 ft. The extent of the encroachment made by each petitioner is reflected in the map prepared by the office of the DILR. Mr.Thakkar has further submitted that reliance placed by the petitioners on the communication dated 29.3.1994 for claiming that he was permitted to construct and that plans submitted by him were approved by the Dhanera Nagar Panchayat is wholly unfounded as neither such permission nor communication are found on the record of the Nagar Panchayat. He has further submitted that it was a practice adopted by the erstwhile Dhanera Nagar Panchayat, as followed through out the State, that such permissions were granted after appropriate Resolution is passed by the general body in that regard and after passing Resolution, the letter of permission is issued to concern applicant on receipt of permission fee. The permission to construct would reflect the resolution number, date of such resolution and permission fee. In the letter dated 29.3.1994 produced by the petitioner, no such resolution is referred to. The permission to construct would reflect the resolution number, date of such resolution and permission fee. In the letter dated 29.3.1994 produced by the petitioner, no such resolution is referred to. Not only that, upon verification it is noticed that neither such resolution is passed by the general body granting permission to the petitioner No.1 to construct as claimed in the petition nor the permission fees have been paid by the petitioner No.1. He has further submitted that even if the said permission is assumed to have been given then also the said permission stipulated the petitioner to construct over the land owned by petitioner. The part of the construction of the premises of the petitioners is put-up on the public land kept reserved for the laying down 100 ft. wide road. He has, therefore, submitted that the said concocted permission cannot be pressed into service for claiming ownership over the public road. He has further submitted that the conjoint reading of condition Nos.1, 9, 14, 15, 16, 22, 23 and 29 of permission given to petitioners makes it clear that the petitioners were duty bound to put up construction on the land owned by them and granting of permission to construct does not certify ownership and boundaries. The petitioners were required to obtain necessary permission from the office of the Collector before putting up any construction. 15. Mr.Thakkar has further submitted that the report/order under challenge in the present petition was prepared/passed after holding due inquiry and affording opportunity of being heard to all the parties by the District Collector. The said inquiry was conducted upon the direction issued by this Court in Special Civil Application No.2425 of 2004 vide order dated 5.3.2004 to hold such inquiry to determine whether the petitioners have encroached on the public road and also to determine the construction carried out in violation of the statutory provision. He has submitted that the said report was directed to be placed on record of the Special Civil Application No.2425 of 2004 and consequently the same was placed on record. After perusing the said report, averments of the petition and replies filed, this Court has passed an order on 13.5.2009 directing the respondents to take appropriate steps to remove construction/structure which has been erected on public property. The said direction was to be complied with within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order. After perusing the said report, averments of the petition and replies filed, this Court has passed an order on 13.5.2009 directing the respondents to take appropriate steps to remove construction/structure which has been erected on public property. The said direction was to be complied with within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order. He has, therefore, submitted that it is not now open to the petitioners to challenge the report prepared by the District Collector pursuant to the direction of this Court. He has, therefore, submitted that the petition deserves to be dismissed with costs. 16. An affidavit-in-reply is filed on behalf of the respondent No.1. Mr.Umesh Trivedi, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent No.1 has submitted that the petitioners have no cause of action to file the present petition in as much as the petitioners are encroachers upon the public premises belonging to the respondent No.2 Nagarpalika. The petitioners have not produced any documentary evidence to show that the land belongs to them. He has further submitted that the Collector has already recorded a finding in a report prepared pursuant to the direction issued by this Court in public interest litigation and after considering the said report this Court held that there is an encroachment upon the road in question. The grievance raised by the petitioners is baseless. He has further submitted that for the purpose of road, land admeasuring 1 acre 36 gunthas was acquired from Survey No.161/1/A. Therefore, the width of the road is 100 ft. and not 50 ft. as claimed by the petitioners. He has further submitted that simply because some portion of the construction in some other cases was regularized though it is considered to be illegal, the said illegality cannot be perpetuated and no one can claim parity on that basis. He has, therefore, submitted that there is no merit in the petition and hence it deserves to be dismissed. 17. Mr.Trivedi also referred to and relied on the affidavit filed by the City Survey Superintendent and District Inspector of Land Records, Palanpur, pursuant to the direction issued by this Court. It is stated therein that the records of City Survey number were promulgated in 1970. In the said records the width of the road is shown 100 ft. 17. Mr.Trivedi also referred to and relied on the affidavit filed by the City Survey Superintendent and District Inspector of Land Records, Palanpur, pursuant to the direction issued by this Court. It is stated therein that the records of City Survey number were promulgated in 1970. In the said records the width of the road is shown 100 ft. On 21.12.1964 the office of the District Inspector of Land records had acquired the land near revenue survey No.161/1/A. During the acquisition of that land the width of the road is shown as 100 ft. and accordingly the records were modified. During the acquisition of land for road passing from revenue Survey No.161/1/A and the subsequent modification thereto, it is shown in the Kamijasti Patrak (KJP) that while modifying, the land admeasuring 1 acre and 36 gunthas was deducted from revenue survey No.161/1/A. A part of revenue Survey No.161/1/A paiki was declared N.A. vide an order of District Development Officer, Palanpur. The said N.A. permission is given considering the width of the road as 100 ft. The lay out plan of the same is produced on record. From all these documents he has submitted that the encroachment on the public property made by the petitioner is explicitly clear and hence they are not entitled to any relief from this Court. 18. An affidavit-in-rejoinder is filed on behalf of the petitioners to the affidavits filed on behalf of the respondent authorities. The petitioner No.1 has denied that the letter dated 29.3.1994 produced by him alongwith the petition is concocted one. It is stated in the rejoinder affidavit that the then President Vaghajibhai Karshanbhai Rajput has filed an affidavit stating that the letter dated 29.3.1994 was issued with his signatures as the President of Panchayat and the Secretary has also signed the said letter. It was also recorded that no encroachment was made and 100 ft. road was never contemplated. It was further stated that the original owner is entered into 67 transactions with different persons and all these persons are in the record of the Municipality and in the assessment register also their names were entered. It was further stated that the land on which the construction was made was not a public road. 19. road was never contemplated. It was further stated that the original owner is entered into 67 transactions with different persons and all these persons are in the record of the Municipality and in the assessment register also their names were entered. It was further stated that the land on which the construction was made was not a public road. 19. The respondent No.4 i.e. Rasiklal Hansraj Shah, who is also the petitioner in Special Civil Application No.6813 of 2009 has filed his affidavit-in-reply in the present petition on 27.4.2004. Mr.N.M.Kapadia, learned advocate appearing for the respondent No.4 has submitted that the respondent No.4 is the owner of the land bearing Survey No.161/1/A admeasuring about 21,658 sq.yards on the basis of agreement to sell executed by Bhala Mala, son of Mala Jagta, who had got the same on partition between him and Bechar Vasta Prajapati, who had got the entire Survey No.161 from Native State Ruler of Palanpur Navab Tale Mohmad Khan on or before 1944 and sale deed dated 5.3.1983 duly registered was executed in favour of the respondent No.4 by heirs of Bhala Mala on his demise. On the basis of N. A. use permission dated 16.12.1969 and building permission the respondent No.4 erected super-structure and also erected boundary walls within the limit of land purchased by him. He has further submitted that the respondent No.4 has filed Regular Civil Suit no.84 of 2003 against Lataben Ramlal and Soni Ramlal Popatlal in Civil Court at Dhanera, pointing out that they are attempting to take forcible possession of his land and he sought decree of permanent injunction and interim injunction was granted in favour of respondent No.4. Hence with a view to pressurize the respondent No.4 the said Lataben Ramlal and Soni Ramlal Popatlal, filed a petition being Special Civil Application No.2425 of 2004 as if it is Public Interest Litigation without joining the respondent No.4 as party respondent. He has further submitted that the respondent No.4 has not made any illegal construction nor encroached any road side land. There was no approach road of 100 ft. as alleged in the petition. The existing road is less than 50 ft. wide. He has further submitted that the respondent No.4 has not made any illegal construction nor encroached any road side land. There was no approach road of 100 ft. as alleged in the petition. The existing road is less than 50 ft. wide. He has further submitted that there is no reservation of any land purchased by the respondent No.4 and no land from the land purchased by the respondent No.4 was ever acquired by the State Government for the purpose of road widening. He has further submitted that looking to the dispute alleged in the petition the same has to be resolved by the revenue Officer under Section-37(2) of the Bombay Land Revenue Code and without undertaking that exercise, no order can be obtained from this Court. The Dy. Collector's report without holding inquiry cannot at all be considered against the respondent No.4. The order dated 2.4.2004 is absolutely illegal and contrary to the facts on record. The DILR report and sketch prepared by DILR cannot be considered as an evidence which can be used against the respondent No.4. He has, therefore, submitted that no order can be passed against the present petitioners or the respondent No.4 on the basis of the order passed by the Collector on 2.4.2004. 20. The petitioner in Special Civil Application No.6813 of 2009 has challenged the notice dated 19.6.2009 issued by the Chief Officer, Dhanera Nagarpalika. The said notice was issued pursuant to the order passed by the Collector on 2.4.2004 as well as the order of this Court dated 13.5.2009 passed in Special Civil Application No.2425 of 2004. Though the petitioner was impleaded as party in Special Civil Application NO.2425 of 2004 and even subsequently the petitioner had filed Special Civil Application No.5405 of 2004 challenging the order of the Collector dated 2.4.2004 the said fact was not disclosed by the petitioner in the main petition. Subsequently draft amendment was moved wherein the said fact was disclosed by the petitioner. The petitioner has more or less pressed into service the same contentions as were raised by the petitioners in Special Civil Application No.5150 of 2004 and also raised by him in his affidavit-in-reply and hence all these contentions are not required to be separately dealt with in the present petition. 21. The petitioner has more or less pressed into service the same contentions as were raised by the petitioners in Special Civil Application No.5150 of 2004 and also raised by him in his affidavit-in-reply and hence all these contentions are not required to be separately dealt with in the present petition. 21. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties and having considered their rival submissions and having gone through the impugned order passed by the Collector in light of the statutory provisions and decided case law on the subject, we are of the view that the petitioners have not made out a case much less any convincing case to grant any relief as prayed for in these petitions. The real dispute starts when a public interest litigation in the form of Special Civil Application No.2425 of 2004 was filed before this Court and vide its order dated 24.2.2004, while issuing notice, directed the respondent authorities to remove encroachment on the public road known as Dhanera-Deesa road so that residents living in the vicinity have free access to their houses and to file compliance report with reply-affidavit. Pursuant to this order, the Chief Officer, Dhanera Nagarpalika issued notice on 26.2.2004 pointing out that the present petitioners have encroached upon the Government land of 100 ft. wide road, bearing Survey No.161/1-A going from Dhanera to Deesa, which is under possession of Dhanera Nagarpalika. On receipt of this notice, present petitioners moved Civil Application for joining them parties in Special Civil Application No.2425 of 2004. This Court, vide its order dated 5.3.2004, permitted them to be joined as parties and modified the order dated 24.2.2004 to the extent that parties would maintain status quo with respect to the construction made by the present petitioners. The Collector, Banaskantha was directed to decide the question whether the present petitioners have encroached on the public road known as Dhanera-Deesa road and whether the construction was being carried on in violation of statutory provisions and was on public road. The Collector was also directed to hear the parties before the order was passed and the order so passed was directed to be placed on the record of Special Civil Application No.2425 of 2004. The Collector was also directed to hear the parties before the order was passed and the order so passed was directed to be placed on the record of Special Civil Application No.2425 of 2004. Looking to the nature of the case, on request being made, the Court also permitted to join District Inspector of Land Records, Banaskantha and City Survey Superintendent, Dhanera as parties in the said petition. 22. Thereafter, parties have raised their objections not only before the DILR but before the Collector too. They were personally heard and after considering their objections and/or submissions as well as the report of DILR as well as City Survey Superintendent, impugned order was passed by the Collector. It is, therefore, too much to say that notice issued was vague or ambiguous and no proper opportunity was given to the petitioners. 23. As far as encroachment on public road is concerned, this Court, after considering the Collector's order and affidavits filed on behalf of the respondents, disposed off Special Civil Application No.2425 of 2004 on 13.5.2009 and while disposing off the said petition observed that the main grievance of the petitioner that till date no action has been taken by the respondent authorities to remove the illegal construction in question, contains merits and deserves attention. The Court further directed the respondent authorities to take appropriate steps in accordance with law to remove any construction/structure which has been erected on public property. The Court further directed that if the respondent authorities find any such illegal construction/structure, the same will be removed within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the said order. Since the present petitioners are parties to the said petition, the issue stands concluded qua the present petitioners and it is not open for them to reagitate the very same issue again in this petition. It is only because of the interim protection being enjoyed by the present petitioners, the respondent authorities could not take any action till this date. 24. Be that as it may, the record of DILR and City Survey Superintendent as well as other documents, maps etc. produced before the Court clearly reveal that for the purpose of road, land admeasuring 1 Acre and 36 Gunthas was acquired from Survey No.161/1/A. It is evident from the survey made by DILR and City Survey Superintendent that the width of the road is 100 ft. produced before the Court clearly reveal that for the purpose of road, land admeasuring 1 Acre and 36 Gunthas was acquired from Survey No.161/1/A. It is evident from the survey made by DILR and City Survey Superintendent that the width of the road is 100 ft. and not 50 ft. as claimed by the petitioners. It is also evident that the construction is made on the land reserved for 100 ft. road. Simply because at present, the road having 100 ft. width is not made, would not make the petitioners entitled to make any construction on such land reserved for 100 ft. wide road. The petitioners failed to establish any ownership right on such acquired land. On the contrary, it has come on record that the State Government has paid requisite compensation to the land owners at the relevant time. The construction alleged to have been approved by the authority is highly disputed and so-called permission letter is not found on the record of the Nagarpalika. Coupled with all these facts and circumstances, the Collector has considered all relevant aspects of the matter and passed a detailed and speaking order after hearing all concerned parties. This report and/or order of the Collector has even come on the record of Special Civil Application No.2425 of 2004 and it stood the test of scrutiny by the Court. The Court, therefore, does not find any justification to interfere in the order of the Collector nor the petitioners deserve any protection from the Court against removal of encroachment ad/or unauthorised construction on public road as pointed out by the Collector. 25. The judgment relied on by the petitioners do not render any assistance to the petitioners as they are distinguishable on facts. (i) In Food Corporation of India Vs. State of Punjab and others, reported in (2001) 1 SCC 291 , the Apex Court held that in view of the notice to the affected person mandated in the section is not an empty formality; it is meant for a purpose. A vague and unspecific notice will not provide reasonable opportunity to the noticee to file objection meeting the reasons/grounds on which the amendment of the assessment list is proposed to be made. Such a notice cannot be taken to be complying with the statutory requirement. A vague and unspecific notice will not provide reasonable opportunity to the noticee to file objection meeting the reasons/grounds on which the amendment of the assessment list is proposed to be made. Such a notice cannot be taken to be complying with the statutory requirement. The entire procedure adopted by the authorities subsequent to the order of this Court on 24.2.2004 in Special Civil Application No.2425 of 2004 cannot be said to be violative of principles of natural justice. (ii) In Canara Bank and others Vs. Debasis Das and others, reported in (2003) 4 SCC 557 , the Apex Court held that notice is the first limb of the principle that no one should be condemned unheard. It must be precise and unambiguous. It should apprise the party determinatively of the case he has to meet. Time given for the purpose should be adequate so as to enable him to make his representation. In the absence of a notice of the kind and such reasonable opportunity, the order passed becomes wholly vitiated. Thus, it is but essential that a party should be put on notice of the case before any adverse order is passed against him. This is one of the most important principles of natural justice. It is after all an approved rule of fair play. The concept has gained significance and shades with time. All these requisite parameters of observance of principles of natural justice have been fulfilled in the present case. (iii) In Madhavrao Scindia (Dead) By Lrs. Vs. Ramesh Jatav and others, reported (2006) 1 SCC 379 , the Apex Court while issuing notice and granting stay against the direction issued by the High Court observed that, the Municipal Corporation has identified the boundaries of the land alleged to be public park and clearly identified, by taking measurements, the encroachment, if any. The Apex Court further directed that such identification shall have to be done in the presence of the parties likely to be affected adversely by the action of the Municipal Corporation. The DILR and City Survey Superintendent had undertaken this exercise after hearing the parties and measurement, extent of encroachment etc., has come on record. (iv) In Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore Vs. The DILR and City Survey Superintendent had undertaken this exercise after hearing the parties and measurement, extent of encroachment etc., has come on record. (iv) In Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore Vs. Brindavan Beverages (P) Ltd., and others, reported in (2007) 5 SCC 388 , the Apex Court held that the show cause notice is the foundation on which the Department has to build up its case. If the allegations in the show cause notice are not specific and are on the contrary vague, lack details and/or unintelligible that is sufficient to hold that the noticee was not given proper opportunity to meet the allegations indicated in the show cause notice. The facts on record do not provide any support to these allegations. (v) In Shri B. D. Gupta Vs. State of Haryana, reported in (1973) 3 SCC 149 , the Apex Court held that the show-cause notice merely states in vague general terms that the appellant's reply to the charges and allegations was unsatisfactory. It is essential for a show cause notice to indicate the precise scope of the notice and also to indicate the points on which the officer is expected to give reply. Before the impugned order was passed by the Collector, the petitioners were put to notice about all relevant aspects of the matter and they were sufficiently heard in the matter. 26. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case and considering the legal position so far as removal of encroachment on public road is concerned, the petitions deserve to be dismissed and accordingly they are dismissed. Interim relief granted stands vacated. No order as to costs. A request is made on behalf of the petitioners to protect the petitioners by continuing the stay that is operating in their favour, for a further period of eight weeks. The request is opposed by the other side. In light of the fact that the petitioners are in occupation of the place for a long period and Diwali Festivals are approaching, the request is partially accepted, and the stay, which is operating in favour of the petitioners, is continued for six weeks.