JUDGMENT : Ravi R. Tripathi, J. Matter was heard on 27th December, 2010. For paucity of time, the judgment could not be dictated on the same day. The matter was kept on 29th December, 2010. Even on that day, the judgment could not be dictated. The matter was kept today. It is now taken up for dictation of judgment. 2. Petitioner is before this Court praying "to quash and set aside the orders at Annexure-A, passed by the Respondent No. 2 (District Development Officer, District: Banaskantha) dated 26.6.2009 removing the petitioner from post of Sarpanch of the Village: Navishana, Ta. Vadgam, Dist. Banaskantha under Section 57 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 and the order passed by the respondent No. 3 (Addl. Development Commissioner, Gujarat state) dated 29.4.2010 in appeal No. 82/2009 confirming the order passed by the respondent No. 2 dated 26.6.2009". 3. Order dated 26.6.2009 passed by the District Development Officer is at page No. 19, Annexure-B. It is recorded therein that Sarpanch Smt. Parmar Hasumatiben Karshanbhai of village: Navishana, Ta. Vadgam, Dist. Banaskantha has made encroachment in a 'gamtal' land being Sarpanch she is not getting the same removed. Therefore, letter dated 6.10.2008 was received from T.D.O., Vadgam to take action against the Sarpanch, the same was taken into consideration and it was deemed fit to take action against Sarpanch for the misuse of the post. Therefore, a show cause notice was issued under Section 57(1) of the Gujarat Panchayat Act, 1993, herein after referred as the 'Said Act'. 4. Petitioner Smt. Parmar Hasumatiben Karshanbhai of village Navishana, Ta. Vadgam, Dist. Banaskantha replied the show cause notice by letter dated 6.11.2008, 1.12.2008 and 29.12.2008. 5. Order further proceeds to record that husband of the petitioner Karshanbhai Mithabhai is having 2 properties bearing No. 1033 (B9) and 1034 (B10) in assessment register. Both these plots are purchased by him. The measurement of these plots is 45 ft. X 15 ft. The Gram Panchayat has granted 'permission' as per the measurement of the plots purchased. Despite that, on eastern side of the property in question, an 'Otala' by bricks, admeasuring ft. 31.3 inch. X ft. 5.5 inch is constructed. On the southern western side at the rear portion of the property in question, latrine and bathroom are constructed and above that staircase by RCC ad-measuring 45 ft X 1 ft. Despite that, on eastern side of the property in question, an 'Otala' by bricks, admeasuring ft. 31.3 inch. X ft. 5.5 inch is constructed. On the southern western side at the rear portion of the property in question, latrine and bathroom are constructed and above that staircase by RCC ad-measuring 45 ft X 1 ft. X 3 inch is constructed and this encroachment is made. On the southern side of the property in question road from Rupal to Navishana is passing and from the centre of the road only 8.60 meters distance is maintained and thus Urban Development Rules are breached. 6. It is also mentioned in the order that aforesaid encroachment is not removed by the petitioner – Sarpanch though she is residing with her husband as she is having interest same is not removed. Thus by not recovering the penalty under Section 269 of Gujarat Panchayat Act, the Sarpanch has caused pecuniary loss to the Panchayat. 7. On perusal of the order, the Court finds that District Development Officer, Banaskantha has not committed any error. 8. The conclusions recorded by the District Development Officer are as under: "From the perusal of the record, it is clear that the encroachment made by the Sarpanch is stated to have been removed but so far as encroachment made on the southern side, western side and at the rear portion by putting up construction of Latrine and Bathroom and above that staircase by putting RCC ad-measuring 45 Ft X 1 Ft. X 3 inch is not removed. Thus, the petitioner-Sarpanch has remained inactive in getting the encroachment made by her husband and younger brother of her husband (Diyar). Besides by not recovering the penalty, a pecuniary loss is caused to the Gram Panchayat. If a person like Sarpanch who is responsible office bearer, is not removed, the encroachment made by her husband or the younger brother of the husband remains inactive in that, then, other citizens of village are also likely to take to imitate him and therefore, it is not advisable to continue the petitioner on the post of Sarpanch". 9. Accordingly, District Development Officer passed the order of removing the Sarpanch. 10. The petitioner approached the Addl. 9. Accordingly, District Development Officer passed the order of removing the Sarpanch. 10. The petitioner approached the Addl. Development Commissioner, Gujarat State who decided the matter by order dated 29.4.2010 and he too recorded that so far as the encroachment made by Sarpanch is concerned, the same is removed but so far as encroachment made by her husband on the rear part of the property by constructing Latrine and Bathroom and above that putting RCC staircase ad-measuring 45 Ft X 1 Ft. X -3 inch is not removed. Thus, Sarpanch has remained inactive in getting encroachment made by her husband and younger brother of her husband removed. Besides, no penalty is recovered for the said encroachment and thus pecuniary loss is caused to the Gram Panchayat. 11. The Court finds no reason to interfere with the order passed by both the authorities below. Besides, it is not the case of the petitioner that these allegations are made by some political rival of the petitioner. 12. It is high time when a person like petitioner who is a Sarpanch in the village sets an example, to be followed by the other residents of the village by her conduct and behaviour, if the petitioner behaves in a manner, as mentioned herein above and if she remains inactive in the matter of getting encroachment removed made by her husband or the younger brother of the husband, the same is bound to send a wrong message to the society. If no action is taken against the erring Sarpanch residents of the village will be encouraged to encroach upon the gamtal land. This Court cannot to be a party to such message. 13. Learned advocate for the petitioner tried to convince this Court by pointing out at page Nos. 49 and 50 that the construction of Latrine and Bathroom and RCC staircase above that ad-measuring 45 Ft X 1 Ft. X 3 inch is made in the land allotted to younger brother of the husband of the petitioner. This is a question of fact which ought to have been agitated before the authority and the authority ought to have convinced that the construction is not in the nature of encroachment in a gamtal land but it is in the land allotted to younger brother of the husband of the petitioner. 14. This is a question of fact which ought to have been agitated before the authority and the authority ought to have convinced that the construction is not in the nature of encroachment in a gamtal land but it is in the land allotted to younger brother of the husband of the petitioner. 14. So far as causing pecuniary loss by not recovering penalty is concerned, it will be open for the authority to recover such penalty. Last but not the least, the photographs produced make it very clear that the petitioner could have avoided, in the first instance any encroachment being made and in any case said could have been removed without being partial or inactive in the matter of removal of encroachment made by the husband of the petitioner and younger brother of the husband. Photographs at page No. 39 prima facie show that the encroachment is made in excess of the land purchased by the husband of the petitioner. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs. Direct service is permitted. Petition dismissed.