JUDGMENT : C.L. Soni, J. 1. Following is the main prayer made in Paragraph No. 44(A) in the petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India:- "44(A) Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order of direction declaring the action of respondents as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, contrary to the law and be pleased to declare the action of respondents as illegal and arbitrary, unreasonable, without jurisdiction so far as it relates to eviction of petitioners from the subject land on the basis of Settlement Commissioner order dated 15.10.2015 and be further pleased to command and restrain the respondents from interfering with the peaceful possession of petitioner from the subject land bearing revenue survey No. 293/P3 admeasuring 20939 sq. mtrs., revenue survey 293/P2 admeasuring 20740 sq. mtrs. and revenue survey No. 293/P1 admeasuring 20740 sq. mtr. of village Nana Mandha Taluka Khambhalia District Devbhumi Dwarka (Old Jamnagar)." 2. Civil Application No. 12317 of 2015 is filed for following main prayer made in paragraph No. 12(B):- "Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue necessary order and directions for initiating appropriate inquiry against respondents for dispossessing the applicants be police officers and be further pleased to direct such authority to place report of inquiry before this Hon'ble Court and be further pleased to punish such officers for such illegal acts." 3. Civil Application No. 12905 of 2015 is filed for following main prayer made in paragraph No. 14(A):- "Hon'ble Court be pleased to admit and allow this application by restraining the respondents theirs servants and agents from interfering with applicants possession of the agriculture land situated at Moje Nana Mandha Takuka Khambhalia, District Devebhumi Dwarka (Old Jamnagar) bearing revenue survey No. 293/P3, 293/P2 and 293/P1 in any manner." 4. It appears that the petitioners and other agriculturist had earlier preferred Special Civil Application No. 10798 of 2015 and allied matters challenging the alleged high handed action of the State authorities stated to be at the behest of respondent No. 2 - Company in trying to remove the petitioners from their agricultural lands without any authority of law and under the guise of acquisition of their lands bearing revenue survey No. 293/P3, 293/P2, 293/P1 (lands in question). Such petitions were disposed of by order dated 05.10.2015 as withdrawn, as Settlement Commissioner was to hear the grievance of the petitioners of Special Civil Application No. 10671 of 2015 and was also directed to hear the grievance of the petitioners, if the petitioners approached him on 09.10.2015 as the Settlement Commissioner was to render decision by 16.10.2015. It appears that the petitioners then approached Settlement Commissioner with an application on 09.10.2015, copy whereof is placed at Page No. 38. In the said application grievance appears to be raised is that respondent No. 2 - company and the Government Officers are misguiding the petitioners and village people and trying to enter upon the lands of the petitioners though respondent No. 2 is not allotted lands of the petitioners. Request is made in the said application that the copies of the orders giving land for personal cultivation in the year 1971, copy of the original Sanad issued in the year 1973 as well as copy of so called measurement sheet of 1973 be ordered to be produced before the Settlement Commissioner and as per measurement taken on site with transplanted sheet on the original documents be considered and necessary order for correcting the record be passed. One more application dated 09.10.2015 was also filed before the Settlement Commissioner to issue necessary direction to any officer to visit site and the office of District Collector, Devbhumi Dwarka be asked to identify and prepare a panchnama in presence of the applicants for the land in relation to the panchnama and Kabja Pavti dated 10.06.2015 for the lands allotted to respondent No. 2 - company and to place such report before the Settlement Commissioner. 5. The Settlement Commissioner after hearing the petitioners, through their advocates and after considering the submissions made by the different authorities passed impugned order dated 15.10.2015 recorded that lands of the petitioners were measured in the year 2010 at the request of the petitioners and map was prepared on such measurement and considering Tipan prepared by the DILR in the year 1956, resurvey map was prepared on 03.09.2015 shows encroachment made by the petitioners. The Settlement Commissioner ultimately canceled survey No. 502, 529, 560 given on the basis of resurvey done by IIC Technology Agency in the year 2012 as well as promulgation order made by the Prant Officer and confirmed the measurement done on 16.01.2010 which was as per the Tipan of 1956. It is this order of Settlement Commissioner which is under challenge before this Court. 6. Learned Senior advocate Mr. N.D. Nanavaty appearing with learned advocate Mr. Savjani for the petitioners submitted that the Settlement Commissioner has failed to perform his duty by not undertaking any measurement of the lands allotted to respondent No. 2. Mr. Nanavaty submitted that when the petitioners have raised serious complaint that the land allotted to respondent No. 2 is forming part of survey numbers of the petitioners and proposed corridor for which the land is allotted would divide the lands of the petitioner, it was incumbent upon the Settlement Commissioner to get the land allotted to respondent No. 2 - company surveyed, measured and boundary marks to the lands allotted, were required to be placed so as to settle the grievance raised by the petitioners finally. Mr. Nanavaty submitted that in any case, when the petitioners have specifically alleged that the lands of the petitioners are sought to be taken away without any authority of law and by permitting the respondent No. 2 - company to have its corridor pass through unidentified land, the Settlement Commissioner ought to have ordered measurement of the lands of the petitioners by responsible authorities. Mr. Nanavaty submitted that the Settlement Commissioner has just compared different maps while sitting in his office for passing the impugned order and failed to discharge his duty as highest authority by not ordering measurement of the lands of respondent No. 2 - company. Mr. Nanavaty submitted that the Settlement Commissioner has just relied on the map prepared by the DILR on 03.09.2015 in absence of the petitioners and set at naught the resurvey done at the site by IIC Technology Agency without any good reasons. Mr. Mr. Nanavaty submitted that the Settlement Commissioner has just relied on the map prepared by the DILR on 03.09.2015 in absence of the petitioners and set at naught the resurvey done at the site by IIC Technology Agency without any good reasons. Mr. Nanavaty submitted that the impugned order of the Settlement Commissioner be quashed and set aside and the Settlement Commissioner or any other competent authority responsible be ordered to survey and measure land and to put boundary marks on the lands allotted to respondent No. 2 and also to measure lands of the petitioners which would finally establish the identity and location of the lands of the parties and it would be known whether the lands allotted to respondent No. 2 is part of the lands of the petitioners or not. 7. Learned Senior advocate Mr. Mihir Joshi appearing with learned advocate Mr. Keyur Gandhi for respondent No. 2 submitted that present petition is one more dishonest attempt on the part of the petitioners to stall respondent No. 2 - company's efforts to make coal conveyor corridor functional for its power plant which is in public interest. Mr. Joshi submitted that the agriculturalist of the village on somebody's behest preferred Writ Petition (PIL) challenging the allotment of the lands by the government to the respondent No. 2 - company for purpose of making corridor, however, this Court dismissed such PIL by observing that element of public interest was involved in the power project of the company. Mr. Joshi submitted that the Court in the said PIL has taken note of different attempts made at different stages by filing suits and petitions to hamper work and functioning of the project. Mr. Mr. Joshi submitted that the Court in the said PIL has taken note of different attempts made at different stages by filing suits and petitions to hamper work and functioning of the project. Mr. Joshi submitted that once respondent No. 2 was allotted land and possession thereof was given after carrying out measurement and issuing possession receipt, there is no question to again carry out measurement of the land allotted to respondent No. 2 - company simply because the petitioners allege that land allotted to respondent No. 2 is forming part of lands of the petitioners and there is also no question of undertaking measurement of the lands of the petitioners as the lands of the petitioners were already measured in the year 2010 as recorded by the Settlement Commissioner in the impugned order and such measurement is found to be correctly made as map of the measurement prepared in the year 2010 was compared with the Tippan of 1956 and measurement sheet prepared by DILR in the year 2015. Mr. Joshi submitted that attempt of the petitioners is to see that measurement done in the year 2010 at the instance of the petitioners wherein encroachment by the petitioners on the government land is found may not be relied on for the purpose of taking any action against them. Mr. Joshi submitted that in fact what the petitioners want is that their allegation of encroachment by respondent No. 2 - company by constructing corridor for its power project be inquired into by this Court which this Court may not permit in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as such issue could be decided only after appreciating evidence which may be led by the parties alleging such encroachment before appropriate forum. Mr. Joshi submitted that in fact the petitioners at every stage have made mischievous attempt to project that on north side of their land there exists "kabarsthan" and the lands allotted to respondent No. 2 are part of their lands. Mr. Mr. Joshi submitted that in fact the petitioners at every stage have made mischievous attempt to project that on north side of their land there exists "kabarsthan" and the lands allotted to respondent No. 2 are part of their lands. Mr. Joshi drew attention of the Court to a sketch at Page No. 53 produced by the petitioners to point out that in original sketch prepared by Talati cum Mantri, there is no endorsement or writing 'Kabarsthan' on north side of the lands of the petitioners as same is not found in the sketch produced by the petitioners before the bank for the purpose of loan. Mr. Joshi would submit that relying on falsehood and fabricated sketch, the petitioners would make attempt to urge that their lands are required to be identified and measured. Mr. Nanavaty however, submitted that there is no falsehood in the sketch produced by the petitioners as same was produced based on the original map prepared by the concerned authorities and that what is produced for the purpose of loan before bank could not be compared with the sketch produced before this Court so as to urge that the petitioners have done any mischief. 8. Learned Government Pleader Ms. Manisha Shah for the State authorities submitted that it is not correct that lands allotted to respondent No. 2 are forming part of the lands of the petitioners. Ms. Shah submitted that lands allotted to respondent No. 2 - company are measured and after preparing measurement sheet, respondent No. 2 was given possession Kabcha receipt by the concerned authorities. Ms. Shah submitted that the petitioners have not come with clean hands as the lands of the petitioners were measured in the year 2010 and in such measurement it was found that the petitioners have encroached upon government lands. Ms. Shah submitted that the petitioners have not disputed such measurement carried out in the year 2010 at their instance. Ms. Shah submitted that once measurement of the petitioners land was carried out in the year 2010 it could be said that their lands were earmarked and identified and the petitioners are now not justified to ask for measurement of the lands allotted to respondent No. 2 - company just because the petitioners have alleged that respondent No. 2 has encroached upon their lands by taking corridor from their land. Ms. Ms. Shah submitted that concerned authorities have filed affidavits clearly stating that respondent No. 2 is not allotted lands of the petitioners and that the petitioners were to have found encroached upon the government land on measurement done in the year 2010. Ms. Shah submitted that concerned authorities in their affidavits have clarified all aspects to point out that attempt of the petitioners to get their lands measured is not bona fide. Ms. Shah submitted that the Settlement Commissioner after giving full opportunity to the petitioners and after considering different measurement correctly recorded in the impugned order that there is no need to interfere with the measurement sheet prepared in the year 2010 as measurement sheet prepared on 03.10.2015 by DILR is in consonance with the measurement carried out in the year 2010. She therefore, urged not to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Settlement Commissioner in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 9. The Court having heard learned advocates for the parties finds that there is no dispute on the aspect that at the request of petitioners measurement of their lands was done in the year 2010. Against such measurement no grievance was made by the petitioners, till respondent No. 2 - company was allotted lands of different survey numbers, except the survey numbers belonging to the petitioners. However, it appears that after the lands were allotted to respondent No. 2 - company the petitioners and others village people started making grievance against allotment of lands to respondent No. 2 - company. Such grievance was sought to be raised by filing Writ Petition (PIL) No. 136 of 2015 which was heard with Special Civil Application 13902 of 2015. The Court while dismissing the PIL has observed in paragraph No. 8 and 10 as under:- "8. It is not out of list to mention that respondent No. 1 has stated in his reply that the petitioners in guise of public interest banner, have been promoting their personal agenda and that the present petition is an arm twisting tactic at somebody's behest. It is stated that other writ petitions and civil suits are also filed to hamper the work and functioning of the project. It appears that Special Civil Application Nos. It is stated that other writ petitions and civil suits are also filed to hamper the work and functioning of the project. It appears that Special Civil Application Nos. 7384 of 2015 and 10612 of 2015 were filed and are pending in respect of the very subject matter and it is the say of the respondent that no sooner a letter of allotment of the land in question was produced in the proceedings of Special Civil Applications, did than the present public interest petition came to be filed, which is curious in itself. Looking to the stage of the project, nature of grievance couching it as public interest and the attendant circumstances including the manner of use of the land as well as the arrangement required to be made to transport of coal by from the project to the jetty by employing tankers and the need of the transportation corridor etc. are the aspect which did not doubt, certainly it places the bona fide of element of public interest in the challenge sought to be raised. 10. The power project of respondent No. 1 company is designed to generate 1,200 MW power, out of which, substantial part, that is 1,000 MW is being supplied to Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Limited which is an instrumentality of the State, therefore, it cannot be gainsaid that there is a public interest element which the power project of the respondent company caters to. The environment clearance is granted to the project by the Ministry of Environment and Forests on 17th July, 2009 under the provisions of the Environment Impact Assessment Notification, 2006, subject to the implementation of the terms and conditions mentioned in the clearance letter which was made available for perusal of the Court. While granting environment clearance, the Central Government take note of land requirement, sea water to be used in the project, total amount of investment, etc. Pertinently, one of the aspects mentioned was also that transportation of coal from jetty to plant site would be through closed conveyor. There was a substance in the submission that coal conveyor corridor was essential and in a way integral part of the whole project of the power plant which is already commissioned. Pertinently, one of the aspects mentioned was also that transportation of coal from jetty to plant site would be through closed conveyor. There was a substance in the submission that coal conveyor corridor was essential and in a way integral part of the whole project of the power plant which is already commissioned. Looking to the total land utilised by the company for the project, substantial chunk was purchased by it privately, part of it was acquired by the State Government upon request by the company and what is granted under the impugned order is comparatively a portion of total requirement. As far as Gauchar portion is concerned, the same also forms small part of the total." 10. The following observations are part of further order made by the Court:- "However, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Ms. Vijyalakshmi further submits that in addition to the principal issue, the allegation is made by the petitioners that the respondent company has encroached over the land belonging to the petitioners. The said aspect is denied by the respondent company. However in our view, we need not dwell upon the aspect of encroachment, if any, more particularly when the petitioners have remedy for this purpose by approaching before the revenue authorities under the provisions of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 as well as to raise grievance for removal of encroachment before the appropriate forum. Hence, the said petition shall also stand disposed of accordingly." 11. It appears that before PIL was dismissed on 20.10.2015, the petitioners had preferred the petitions, as stated above, being Special Civil Application No. 10798 of 2015 and allied matters, wherein the Settlement Commissioner was directed to also hear the grievances of the petitioners as he was already directed to hear the grievance of other petitioners. The Settlement Commissioner has heard all the petitioners and found no substance in the say of the petitioners that lands allotted for proposed corridor is forming part of the lands of the petitioners. 12. Learned advocate Mr. Nanavaty however submitted that the Settlement Commissioner has just compared different maps and without actual measurement of the lands of the parties, decision is arrived at. It is not that irrespective of facts of the case, the Settlement Commissioner in every case is required to accept request for measurement of lands. 12. Learned advocate Mr. Nanavaty however submitted that the Settlement Commissioner has just compared different maps and without actual measurement of the lands of the parties, decision is arrived at. It is not that irrespective of facts of the case, the Settlement Commissioner in every case is required to accept request for measurement of lands. If he finds that measurement is already carried out and the measurement sheet and map are prepared and considering measurement sheets and maps available with him if he finds that no interference is required in the measurement sheet already prepared, no fault in the approach made by him could be found in taking decision on the grievances raised by the parties. 13. The Settlement Commissioner has observed in his order that the measurement sheet and map prepared by DILR on 03.09.2015 as per instructions of Collector is in consonance with the measurement sheet prepared on 16.01.2010 at the instance of the petitioners. If the authority like DILR had prepared measurement sheet on 03.09.2015 and such measurement sheet is found to be in consonance with measurement sheet dated 16.01.2010 prepared for the lands of the petitioners, there is no reason to discard such measurement sheet simply because it is alleged that same was prepared in absence of the petitioners. It is required to be noted that in the measurement sheet prepared on 16.01.2010 encroachment by the petitioners on the government lands is shown. For such encroachment, the Collector is instructed to take necessary action. It is required to note that when the encroachment was found at the time, the measurement was taken of the lands of the petitioners at the instance of the petitioners, the petitioners would have certainly known about the extent of lands held by them in their survey numbers and therefore, there is no need to repeat measurement of their lands. 14. Mr. Nanavaty would submit that since citizen have come before this Court alleging that mighty company has attempted to cover their lands under the guise of allotment of lands to it, no prejudice would be caused to respondent No. 2 - company if measurement of the allotted land is undertaken especially to know whether the lands allotted to company or making of corridor by the company are part of the lands of the petitioners or not. Mr. Mr. Joshi on the other hand would submit that in fact substance of allegations in the petition as also of arguments is that respondent No. 2 has encroached upon the lands of the petitioners which may not be decided by this Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as it would require appreciating evidence to decide on the issue of encroachment. Mr. Joshi submitted that in fact the petitioners filed civil suit against the company, however, later on such suit was withdrawn. 15. Mr. Nanavaty submitted that since the Settlement Commissioner was directed to look into the grievance of the petitioners, suit was withdrawn. Be that as it may, it appears to the Court that attempt on the part of the petitioners by the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to decide on the issue of alleged encroachment made by respondent No. 2 - company. The Court may not decide such issue in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. If it is otherwise permissible to the petitioners, the petitioners can get such issue decided by the appropriate forum. This Court finds that the Settlement Commissioner has committed no error in arriving at the impugned decision and therefore, no interference is called for in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India especially when it is not alleged that the Settlement Commissioner has not given any fair opportunity while taking such decision or that the impugned order is in excess of the authority vested with the Settlement Commissioner. 16. For the reasons stated above, the petition is dismissed. Notice discharged. Since the main petition is dismissed, merits of the Civil Applications are not required to be gone into. Both the Civil Applications are therefore, disposed of. Interim relief, if any, in the petition or in the Civil Applications, stands vacated.