JUDGMENT VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J. 1. The present public interest litigation has been filed by the petitioner praying for the following reliefs: "12(A) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to allow this petition and issue a writ of mandamus or writ in the nature of mandamus or any appropriate writ or direction or order directing the concerned Respondent Nos.1 to 4 to take swift and stringent actions to prevent & remove the illegal constructions & encroachments in the road margin area of Bardoli Mota Mirapur Orna Road, District Surat which is declared as District Main Road stretching to 14.93 kms as mentioned in Pare 4.12 of this petition. (B) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent No.1 to 4 to inquire about the other illegal constructions & encroachments in road margin of Bardoli Mota Mirapur Orna Road, District Surat and thereafter to take swift & stringent steps to remove the same with an immediate effect. (C) Pending admission hearing and final disposal of this petition, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to grant interim reliefs by appointing a court Commissioner to visit the Bardoli Mota Mirapur Orna Road, District Surat and submit his independent report before this Hon'ble Court about the illegal construction & encroachment being done in the road margin area of district main road in question. (D) Pending admission hearing and till final disposal of this petition, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent Nos.1 to 4 to immediately take steps to prevent and stop the illegal constructions & encroachments being undertaken in road margin area of Bardoli Mota Mirapur Road, District Surat. (E) That the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to grant such other and further relief that may be deemed just and proper." 2. Heard learned senior counsel Mr.Mehul Shah assisted by learned advocate Mr.Maria Dalal for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Devnani for the respondents. 3. Learned senior counsel Mr.Shah submitted that the revenue department has passed a resolution on 17.7.1980 with regard to maintaining and preventing the violation of the rules of road margin (Ribbon Development) of national and state roads. Rules are framed by the respondent-state with regard to the road margin which is required to be left for different types of construction. 3. Learned senior counsel Mr.Shah submitted that the revenue department has passed a resolution on 17.7.1980 with regard to maintaining and preventing the violation of the rules of road margin (Ribbon Development) of national and state roads. Rules are framed by the respondent-state with regard to the road margin which is required to be left for different types of construction. So far as the road margin is concerned, the same is to be considered from the centre point of the road and as per the resolution of 1980, 30 mtr. of road margin is required for residential construction and 55 mtrs. for commercial construction. At this stage, learned counsel has referred to the said resolution produced on record. 4. At this stage, learned counsel further submits that the concerned Collector or District Development Officer, while issuing permission for conversion of agricultural land to nonagricultural purpose, have to take opinion from the Executive Engineer with regard to road margin and the same is to be incorporated while passing the order granting non-agricultural permission as one of the conditions. 5. Learned senior counsel would further submit that the petitioner came to know that certain illegal construction has been carried out by the concerned persons in the road margin of Bardoli Mota Mirapur Orna Road and therefore he submitted an application under the Right to Information Act to the respondent authorities and sought for certain information. After getting information from the respondent authorities, the petitioner addressed a communication to the concerned respondent authorities alleging that some of the persons mentioned in the said communication have carried out illegal construction on the road margin and therefore necessary action be taken against such encroachers and it was also requested to remove any illegal construction. However, the respondent authorities have not taken any action. The petitioner has, therefore, filed the present petition. 6. Learned senior counsel thereafter referred the representation made by the petitioner and the photographs annexed with the petition. After referring to the said photographs, it is submitted that though there is illegal construction on the road margin carried out by concerned persons, the respondent authorities are not taking any action and therefore the reliefs prayed for in the present petition be granted. 7. After referring to the said photographs, it is submitted that though there is illegal construction on the road margin carried out by concerned persons, the respondent authorities are not taking any action and therefore the reliefs prayed for in the present petition be granted. 7. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Devnani appearing for the respondents opposed this petition and submitted that when the representation was received from the petitioner, the concerned Deputy Executive Engineer has verified the allegations made in the said representation. He has also carried out the inspection of the alleged illegal constructions made on the road margin and it was found that there is no illegal construction as alleged by the petitioner and therefore he has sent necessary communication to the petitioner as well as to the Executive Engineer. Learned Assistant Government Pleader thereafter referred the affidavit-in-reply filed by the Executive Engineer and contended that there is no construction within the restrictions under the Ribbon Development Rules as alleged by the petitioner and therefore this Court may not entertain this petition. 8. We have considered the submissions canvassed by the learned advocates appearing for the parties. We have also gone through the material produced on record. The Ribbon Development Rules have been framed under the relevant provisions contained in the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879. It has been specified therein that no building can be constructed within the distance of certain specified area from the control line with respect to the national and state highways and major district roads. The control line in each case is different for different categories of roads. When there is a restriction on any construction activity, it is in the nature of regulation with respect to construction activity. From the resolution dated 17.7.1980 for which the reliance is placed by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, it is revealed that 30 mtrs. road margin is required for residential construction and 55 mtr. for commercial construction. While granting permission for non-agricultural use of the land, concerned authorities are also providing the condition that necessary road margin is required to be kept at the time of carrying out construction. road margin is required for residential construction and 55 mtr. for commercial construction. While granting permission for non-agricultural use of the land, concerned authorities are also providing the condition that necessary road margin is required to be kept at the time of carrying out construction. The allegation levelled by the petitioner in the petition is that the concerned persons who have carried out the construction in particular block numbers have not kept the required road margin and thereby they have carried out the illegal construction which is to be removed by the respondent authorities. The grievance is raised that though representation is made to the respondent authorities, no action is taken by the respondent authorities for removal of such illegal construction. 9. From the affidavit-in-reply filed by the Executive Engineer, it is revealed that the concerned authority, while giving the permission for using the land for non-agricultural use, has granted such permission subject to compliance of Ribbon Development Rules. The photographs are also placed along with the said affidavit and it is categorically averred that in the present case there is no construction within the restrictions under the Ribbon Development Rules and further considering the entire Bardoli Mota Mirpur Orna Road, no illegal encroachment was found on the said road. The construction of the building is as per the Ribbon Development Rules. The said fact is also supported by the communication dated 9.1.2018 from the Deputy Executive Engineer to the Executive Engineer wherein it has been specifically stated that when the road is inspected, on the basis of the application received from the petitioner, no illegal construction is found. The said document is produced by the petitioner himself at page 98 of the compilation. However, the petitioner has filed rejoinder and controverted the stand taken by the respondent-authority by once again alleging that the illegal construction has been carried out in the road margin on the road mentioned in the petition. For the said purpose, reliance is placed on the photographs attached to the petition. 10. However, the petitioner has filed rejoinder and controverted the stand taken by the respondent-authority by once again alleging that the illegal construction has been carried out in the road margin on the road mentioned in the petition. For the said purpose, reliance is placed on the photographs attached to the petition. 10. From the material placed on record, it is clear that, when the representations were received from the petitioner, the concerned respondent authority has carried out the inspection and when it is found that no illegal construction is carried out by any person and require road margin is kept at the time of construction of the building, we are of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to claim the reliefs prayed for in the petition. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this petition is required to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed.