JUDGMENT : 1. The petition, filed by the petitioner Dr. Kamleshbhai Daljibhai Chaudhry under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the Notices dated 26.8.2020 and 1.9.2020 (Annexures D and E respectively) jointly issued by the respondent Authorities, calling upon the petitioner to remove the encroachments and demolish the illegal constructions made on the land bearing Survey No.87 paiki, situated at the Village Shankheshwar (hereinafter referred to as the “land in question”). 2. As per the case of the petitioner, he is a doctor by profession and running a dispensary at the Village Shankheshwar. The petitioner has also got registered a trust namely “Margi Foundation”. The petitioner has put up construction of his dispensary in 1200 sq. mtrs., and also carried out other constructions for the benefits of the society on the said land in question. It is further case of the petitioner that on the complaint made by one Kantibhai K. Joshi, the Mamlatdar, Shankheshwar had issued a Notice on 3.7.2020 to the petitioner and one Mr.Thakore Amram Shankherji, calling upon them to vacate the land in question stating inter alia that on the measurement carried out by the office of the District Inspector of Land Records, Patan, it was found that they (the petitioner and Mr. Thakore Amram Shankherji) had made encroachments on the Government land and had carried out illegal constructions thereon. By the said Notice, they were called upon the remove the encroachments within 15 days of the Notice. Thereafter, the petitioner and other four persons were again served with the Notice dated 8.7.2020 by the Mamlatdar, calling upon them to remove the encroachments made by them on the land in question. Again the respondent Taluka Development Officer, the Talaticum Mantri and the Sarpanch, jointly issued another Notice on 26.8.2020 to the petitioner and others calling upon them to remove the encroachments on the Government land in question, on or before 31.8.2020. The petitioner was again intimated vide Notice dated 1.9.2020 jointly issued by the said respondents, calling upon him to remove the encroachments and demolish the constructions illegally made on the said land on or before 2.9.2010. It was also mentioned therein that if the petitioner failed to do so, the same shall be removed by the respondent authorities at the cost and risk of the petitioner. The petitioner, therefore, has challenged the said Notices by way of the present petition. 3. It was also mentioned therein that if the petitioner failed to do so, the same shall be removed by the respondent authorities at the cost and risk of the petitioner. The petitioner, therefore, has challenged the said Notices by way of the present petition. 3. It may noted that on 3.9.2020, the learned Advocate Mr. Mangukiya for the petitioner having expressed the urgency, the matter was heard by the Court at the fag end of the Court hours and the Court, while issuing Notices to the respondents, had directed the respondents to maintain statusquo till the returnable date i.e. 4.9.2020. On 4.9.2020, learned Advocate Munshaw appeared for the respondents No.3 and 4 and sought time to file a reply. Accordingly, time was granted. The Order of status quo has continued till this date. 4. The respondent No.3 Taluka Development Officer has filed the affidavitinreply contending inter alia that the Revenue Survey No.87 paiki of Village Shankheshwar is Government padtar land and the area of 22057 sq. Mtrs., thereof stands in the name of Shankheshwar Gram Panchayat as per the Revenue Record. There were complaints received about the encroachments and illegal constructions made on the portion of the said land possessed by the by the Shankheshwar Gram Panchayat. The land, therefore, was measured by the District Inspector of Land Records, Patan, and according to the measurement sheet, it was found that the petitioner had encroached upon the area of 2977 sq. mtrs., of the said land, on which he had made huge construction of two buildings, out of which one building was used for his clinic and the other for other amenities. The District Collector, therefore, had instructed the Mamlatdar, Shankheshwar to remove the unauthorized encroachments made by the petitioner as per the measurement sheet. The Mamlatdar, Shankheshwar, therefore, issued the Notices on 3.7.2020 and 8.7.2020, calling upon the petitioner and other encroachers to remove the illegal encroachment and constructions made on the subject land on or before 15.7.2020. The Mamlatdar also addressed a letter dated 17.7.2020 to the respondent No.3 the Taluka Development Officer to initiate action for the removal of encroachment, on the basis of which the respondent No.3 instructed the Sarpanch/TalaticumMantri of Shankheshwar Gram Panchayat vide the letter dated 9.8.2020 to take prompt action for the removal of the encroachment and illegal constructions put up on the said Survey No.87. Thereafter the Notice dated 26.8.2020 was jointly issued by the respondent Nos.3 and 4 to the petitioner and other encroachers calling upon them to remove the encroachments on or before 30.8.2020, however, the petitioner failed to remove the same, and therefore, necessary actions were initiated for removal of the unauthorized constructions on 31.8.2020. On 1.9.2020, the officer of the District Land Records, Patan again earmarked the portion encroached by the petitioner by putting up illegal constructions of the hospital and the medical store. Again another Notice on 1.9.2020 was jointly issued by the Taluka Development Officer, the Talaticum Mantri, and the Sarpanch, Shankheshwar Gram Panchayat, calling upon the petitioner to remove the equipments as well as to discharge the patients before 9.30 a.m. on 2.9.2020, as the work of demolition was to commence at 10.30 a.m., on 2.9.2020. Accordingly, the demolition work of unauthorized constructions of the medical store and other amenities had commenced on 2.9.2020 with the help of labour force, JCB Machine, and Hitachi Machine under the police bandobast, and the buildings comprising ground floor and first floor were demolished between 4.15 p.m., to 6.10 p.m.. The respondent No.3 had also produced the photographs indicating the demolition work carried out by the respondents. According to the respondent No.3 the petitioner was issued four Notices before carrying out the demolition work, however, none of the Notices was replied to by the petitioner. The petitioner as the President of “Margi Foundation” had also addressed a representation on 4.6.2020 to the TalaticumMantri and the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Shankheshwar, requesting them to sell or let out the land in question to the petitioner for carrying on his activities. The respondent No.4 TalaticumMantri has also resisted the petition by filing the affidavitinreply almost on the same lines as the respondent No.3. 5. The petitioner has filed affidavitinrejoinder contending inter alia that the measurement carried out by the office of the District Inspector of Land Records was not correct and the petitioner was not given an opportunity to defend himself. The respondent No.4 TalaticumMantri has also resisted the petition by filing the affidavitinreply almost on the same lines as the respondent No.3. 5. The petitioner has filed affidavitinrejoinder contending inter alia that the measurement carried out by the office of the District Inspector of Land Records was not correct and the petitioner was not given an opportunity to defend himself. The petitioner has also contended that the action of the respondent authority was in contravention of the provisions contained in Section 105 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Act”), as also Rule 55 of the Gujarat Panchayat (Procedure) Rules, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Rules”), and therefore, the impugned Notices were required to be set aside. 6. The learned Advocate Mr.Mangukiya for the petitioner, placing heavy reliance on the provisions contained in the said Act, more particularly on Sections 104 and 105 of the Act as also Rule 55 of the said Rules vehemently submitted that the respondent authorities had acted highhandedly and in utter disregard of the provisions of the said Act and also of the principles of natural justice, by demolishing a part of the constructions raised by the petitioner, under the guise that the petitioner had made encroachments on the Government Padtar Land. Mr.Mangukiya submitted that neither the Taluka Development Officer, nor the Mamlatdar had any authority to issue the impugned Notices, which otherwise were also in contravention of the provisions contained in Sections 104 and 105 read with Rule 55 of the said Rules. Mr.Mangukiya had placed heavy reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in case of Olga Tellis and Ors. Vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation and Ors., reported in (1985) 3 SCC 545 to submit that the right to life which is guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution included the right to livelihood. Reliance was also placed on the unreported decision of the Supreme Court in case of Municipal Corporation Greater Mumbai and Ors., Vs. M/s.Sandeep Hitech Developers Private Ltd., in Civil Appeal No.7627 of 2019 decided on 24.10.2019 to buttress his submission that at least 7 days’ notice was required to be issued to the petitioner before taking action under Sections 104 and 105 of the said Act. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in case of A. K. Kraipak Vs. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in case of A. K. Kraipak Vs. Union of India, reported in (1969) 2 SCC 262 and the decision in case of Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India, reported in (1978) 1 SCC 248 to emphasize his submission that the aim of the rule of natural justice is to secure justice or to put it negatively to prevent miscarriage of justice. 7. Per contra, the learned Advocate Mr.Munshaw for the respondent Nos.3 and 4 taking the Court to the impugned Notices as well as the other Notices issued by the respondent authorities, strenuously urged that the petitioner being an educated person and a doctor by profession should not have made illegal encroachment and illegal constructions on the land belonging to the Government and in possession of the Shankheshwar Gram Panchayat as per the Revenue record. According to Mr. Munshaw on the measurement of the land bearing Survey No.87 having been carried out by the office of the District Inspector of the Land Records, it was found that the petitioner had illegally encroached upon the said land belonging to the Government and had also put up illegal constructions without any permission from the Gram panchayat, and therefore, the petitioner was initially served with the Notices issued by the Mamlatdar, Shankheshwar and joint Notices by the Taluka Development Officer, the TalaticumMantri and the Sarpanch, Shankhshwar Gram Panchayat, which were in consonance with the provisions contained in the said Act and the Rules. According to him, though the petitioner was given sufficient opportunity to remove the illegal encroachments and the constructions by issuing Notices time and again he had chosen not to respond to the Notices, and when the actual demolition work was started on 2.9.2020, the petitioner had rushed to this Court, however, by the time, the Court passed the order of maintaining the statusquo, the unauthorized construction of the building of the ground floor and first floor was already removed, as could be seen from the photographs and the rojkam produced on record by the respondent No.3. He lastly submitted that the very fact that the petitioner and other Trustees had made representation to the TalaticumMantri and to the Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat to purchase the said land or to give the land on rent, shows that the said land in question did not belong to the petitioner. He lastly submitted that the very fact that the petitioner and other Trustees had made representation to the TalaticumMantri and to the Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat to purchase the said land or to give the land on rent, shows that the said land in question did not belong to the petitioner. The petitioner himself being a wrongdoer, no relief should be granted by the Court exercising the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. 8. At the outset, it would be beneficial to reproduce the relevant provisions contained in Sections 104 and 105 of the said Act, for the ready reference:“ 104. Control on erection of buildings. (1) No person shall erect or reerect or commence to erect or reerect within the limits of the village, any building without the previous permission of the panchayat. (2) xxx (3) xxx (4) Whoever erects or reerects or commences to erect or reerect any building without such permission or in any manner contrary to the provisions of subsection (1) or any byelaw in force, or any conditions imposed by the panchayat shall, on conviction be punished with fine, which may extend to two hundred rupees and in the case of a continuing contravention, he shall be liable to an additional fine which may extend to twenty rupees for each day during which such contravention continues after conviction for the first such contravention. (5) Without prejudice to the penalty prescribed in subsection (4) the panchayat may( a) direct that the erection or reerection be stopped, (b) by written notice require such erection or reerection to be altered or demolished, as it may deem necessary, and if the requirement under clause (b) is not complied with within the time fixed in the notice, the panchayat may cause the alteration or demolition to be carried out by its officers and all the expenses incurred by the panchayat therefor, shall be recoverable in the same manner as an amount claimed on account of any tax recoverable under Chapter X. Provided that when a notice for bringing any action against any direction for the alteration or demolition of any erection or reerection issued under this subsection has been given under subsection (2) of section 270, alteration or demolition shall not be caused to be carried out until the expiry of the period of such notice and a further period of seven days. (6) xxx 105. (6) xxx 105. Obstruction and encroachment upon public streets and open sites. (1) Whoever, within the limits of a village (a) xxx (b) xxx (c) without written permission given to the owner or occupier of a building by a panchayat puts up, so as to project from an upper storey thereof any verandah, balcony, room or other structure or thing. In or over any public street or place, or in or upon any open drain, gutter, sewer or aqueduct in such street or place, or contravenes any conditions subject to which any permission as aforesaid is given or the provisions of any byelaw made in relation to any such projections or cultivates or makes any unauthorised use of any grazing land, not being private property, shall on conviction, be punished with fine, and with further fine which may extend to twenty `five rupees for each day on which such obstruction, deposit, projection, cultivation or unauthorised use continues after the date of first conviction for such offence. (2) The panchayat may remove any such obstruction or encroachment and remove any crop unauthorisedly cultivated, on grazing land or any other land not being private property, and may remove any unauthorised obstruction or encroachment of the like nature in any open site not being private property, whether such site is vested in the panchayat or not; Provided that if the site be vested in the State Government, the permission of the Collector or any officer authorised by him in this behalf, shall have first been obtained the expenses of such removal shall be paid by the person who has caused the said obstruction or encroachment and shall be recoverable under Chapter X: Provided further that when before the removal of any such encroachment or projection a notice for bringing action in that behalf has been given under subsection (2) of section 270, no action for the removal of the encroachment or projection shall be taken until the expiry of the period of such notice and further period of seven days. (3) xxx (4) xxx (5) xxx (6) xxx (7) Where the panchayat finds it difficult to remove any obstruction or encroachment or any crop unauthorisedly cultivated on grazing lands as referred to in subsection (2), it shall inform the Taluka Development Officer accordingly and the Taluka Development Officer shall on receipt of such information exercise the powers of the panchayat under subsection (2) and take action to remove the obstruction, encroachment or, as the case may be, the crop. (8) xxx” 9. Mr. Mangukiya has also relied upon Rule 55 of the said Rules, which is reproduced as under: 55. Procedure for taking action under subsection (5) of Section 104 or subsection (2) of Section 105.( 1) Before taking action under subsection (5) of section 104 in respect of its clause (b) (alteration or demolition of erection or reerection) or before taking action mentioned in subsection (2) of section 105 (removal of obstruction or encroachment etc.) the person against whom the action is proposed shall be given seven clear days notice to show cause why the proposed action should not be taken giving details of actions desired to be taken by such person, failing which the action proposed (details to be given in the notice) shall be taken by the panchayat. (2) Such notice shall clearly mention last date of his reply in writing to be delivered to the Panchayat and also the date, time and place where he will be given a personal hearing before the panchayat meeting. (3) The panchayat shall after considering the written reply and personal hearing, decide the action to be taken by a resolution at such meeting and a copy of the same shall be served upon the person concerned with notice to comply accordingly within seven days, failing which decision of the panchayat shall be implemented at his cost and risk. (4) The panchayat shall after the expiry of seven days from the date of service of such notice under subrule (3), take action as per subsection (5) of section 104 or subsection (2) of Section 105, as the case may be. (5) Notice under subrule (1) and (3) shall be served, personally to the person concerned or any adult member of his family residing with him or by affixing at his residence or place of business or by post by registered letter AD. if he resides out of the village panchayat area. (5) Notice under subrule (1) and (3) shall be served, personally to the person concerned or any adult member of his family residing with him or by affixing at his residence or place of business or by post by registered letter AD. if he resides out of the village panchayat area. " 10. As discernible from the aforestated provisions, no person can erect or reerect within the limits of the village, any building without the previous permission of the Panchayat, and if he does so without such permission, he not only invites penal consequences, but the Panchayat can also demolish such erection after a written notice as contemplated in Section 104. It is further discernible from Section 105 that whoever within the limits of a village, without the written permission given by the Panchayat puts up any projection of an upper storey or verandah or balcony etc., in or over any public street or makes any unauthorized use of grazing land, he makes him liable for the punishment as prescribed therein. The Panchayat in such cases can also remove such obstructions or encroachments made on any open site not being the private property, whether such site is vested in the Panchayat or not. Of course, if the site is vested in the State Government, the permission of the Collector or any officer authorized by him in this behalf has to be obtained. It is further provided in the said provision that if the Panchayat finds it difficult to remove such obstructions or encroachments, it shall intimate the Taluka Development Officer, who on receipt of such intimation can exercise the powers of the Panchayat under Subsection (2) and take action to remove the obstruction or encroachment as the case may be. 11. Now, so far as the facts of the present case are concerned, admittedly the petitioner is a doctor by profession and he had put up constructions of a dispensary and erected other buildings on the part of the land in question bearing Survey No.87. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner is the owner of that part of the land in question, on which such constructions have been made, nor to show that he had obtained any permission as contemplated in Section 104 of the Act from the Gram Panchayat before erecting such constructions. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner is the owner of that part of the land in question, on which such constructions have been made, nor to show that he had obtained any permission as contemplated in Section 104 of the Act from the Gram Panchayat before erecting such constructions. On the contrary, there is ample material as also the revenue records to show that the land in question is a Government Padtar land, and that the petitioner had made illegal encroachment and put up illegal constructions thereon. It is also pertinent to note that the petitioner, who had got the “Margi Foundation Trust” registered, had made a representation to the TalukacumMantri and the Sarpanch of Shankheshwar Gram Panchayat, requesting them to sell or to let out the land bearing Survey No.87 paiki to the petitioner’s Trust, clearly stating therein that it was a Government’s Padtar land and was in possession of the Shankheshwar Gram Panchayat. The said representation has been placed on record by the respondent No.4 along with his affidiavitinreply, which has not been controverted or challenged by the petitioner in his affidavitinrejoinder. In view of the said undisputed facts, there remains no shadow of doubt that the petitioner, though is a doctor by profession had made illegal encroachment and put up illegal constructions to run his dispensary on the Government Padtar land. It is axiomatic that the writ jurisdiction is an extraordinary equitable jurisdiction to be exercised at the discretion of the Court, and the Court would not exercise the discretion in favour of the petition, who himself is the wrongdoer and who has illegally encroached upon and put up illegal constructions on the Government land, in utter disregard of the provisions of the Act and the Rules. 12. Though the learned Advocate Mr.Mangukiya had contended that there was gross violation of principles of natural justice as the petitioner was not given sufficient opportunity of hearing by the respondent authorities before the demolition work had started, the Court does not find any substance in the said submission. 12. Though the learned Advocate Mr.Mangukiya had contended that there was gross violation of principles of natural justice as the petitioner was not given sufficient opportunity of hearing by the respondent authorities before the demolition work had started, the Court does not find any substance in the said submission. As transpiring from the record, after the measurement of the land carried out by the District Inspector of the Land Records, the Mamlatdar, Shankheshwar on the instruction received from the office of the Collector had issued a Notice to the petitioner on 3.7.2020 to remove the illegal encroachment on the Government land within 15 days of the receipt of the Notice. Thereafter, another Notice was also issued by the Mamlatdar on 8.7.2020 to the petitioner and others to remove the illegal encroachments on the land in question on or before 15.7.2020. None of the Notices was replied to by the petitioner. Thereafter the petitioner was again served with the Notice dated 26.8.2020 jointly issued by the Taluka Development Officer, the TalaticumMantri, and the Sarpanch, Shankheshwar Gram Panchayat, calling upon them to remove the encroachment on or before 31.8.2020. The said Notice was also not responded to by the petitioner. Lastly the petitioner was served with the Notice on 1.9.2020, calling upon him to vacate the premises before 9.30 a.m., on 2.9.2020. Thus, the petitioner having not responded to any of the said Notices issued by the respondent authorities from time to time, it could not be said that the petitioner was not given sufficient opportunity to represent his case or that there was violation of principles of natural justice. 13. The Court also does not find any substance in the submission made by Mr.Mangukiya that there was violation of the provisions contained in the Act and the Rules. Section 104 empowers the Gram Panchayat to demolish the illegal erection of buildings carried out without the permission of the Gram Panchayat after the requisite notice. Rule 55 of the said Rules contemplates notice of seven days before taking action under Subsection (5) of Section 104. When the site is vested in Government, the Panchayat could remove the encroachment and illegal constructions after obtaining the permission from the Collector as contemplated in proviso to Subsection (2) of Section 105 of the Act, of course, after the seven days notice as contemplated in Rule 55. When the site is vested in Government, the Panchayat could remove the encroachment and illegal constructions after obtaining the permission from the Collector as contemplated in proviso to Subsection (2) of Section 105 of the Act, of course, after the seven days notice as contemplated in Rule 55. In the instant case, as stated earlier the petitioner having made encroachment on the Government land, on the direction given by the Collector, the Mamlatdar had issued notices on 3.7.2020 and 8.7.2020 to the petitioner and others calling upon them to remove the encroachment, however, none of the notices were responded to by the petitioner. Again the TDO, TalaticumMantri and the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat issued a notice on 26.8.2020 to the petitioner, which also remained unreplied. All the notices were duly received by the petitioner, however, he neither responded to the same nor removed the encroachments, and therefore, ultimately the notice dated 1.9.2020 was given. It may be noted that as per Section 55 of the said Act, the executive power for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of the Act and the resolution passed by the village Panchayat, vests in the Sarpanch. The impugned notices have been given jointly by the Sarpanch, TalaticumMantri and the TDO, and therefore, could not be said to have been issued without any authority, as sought to be submitted by Mr.Mangukiya. After the first notice dated 3.7.2020 by the Mamlatdar at the behest of the Collector, the petitioner was given sufficient time to remove the encroachment on the Government land. By the time, the last impugned notice dated 1.9.2020 was issued, the petitioner had two months to remove the illegal encroachments and the constructions. The impugned notices, therefore, could not be said to be illegal or without the authority of law by any stretch of imagination. 14. At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that the Supreme Court has always come down very heavily on the persons making illegal encroachments and illegal constructions of buildings or other constructions. In case of Dipak Kumar Mukherjee versus Kolkata Municipal Corporation and others, reported in (2013) 5 SCC 336 , the Supreme Court has observed in para 2 and 8 as under : “2. In last four decades, the menace of illegal and unauthorised constructions of buildings and other structures in different parts of the country has acquired monstrous proportion. In case of Dipak Kumar Mukherjee versus Kolkata Municipal Corporation and others, reported in (2013) 5 SCC 336 , the Supreme Court has observed in para 2 and 8 as under : “2. In last four decades, the menace of illegal and unauthorised constructions of buildings and other structures in different parts of the country has acquired monstrous proportion. This Court has repeatedly emphasized the importance of planned development of the cities and either approved the orders passed by the High Court or itself gave directions for demolition of illegal constructions (1) K. Ramadas Shenoy v. Chief Officers, Town Municipal Council (1974) 2 SCC 506 ; (2) Virender Gaur v. State of Haryana (1995) 2 SCC 577 ; (3) Pleasant Stay Hotel v. Palani Hills Conservation Council (1995) 6 SCC 127 ; (4) Cantonment Board, Jabalpur v. S.N. Awasthi 1995 Supp.(4) SCC 595; (5) Pratibha Coop. Housing Society Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra (1991) 3 SCC 341 ; (6) G.N. Khajuria (Dr) v. Delhi Development Authority (1995) 5 SCC 762 ; (7) Manju Bhatia v. New Delhi Municipal Council (1997) 6 SCC 370 ; (8) M.I. Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. Radhey Shyam Sahu (1999) 6 SCC 464 ; (9) Friends Colony Development Committee v. State of Orissa (2004) 8 SCC 733 ; (10) Shanti Sports Club v. Union of India (2009) 15 SCC 705 and (11) Priyanka Estates International Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Assam (2010) 2 SCC 27 . 3 to 7. xxxxx 8. What needs to be emphasised is that illegal and unauthorised constructions of buildings and other structure not only violate the municipal laws and the concept of planned development of the particular area but also affect various fundamental and constitutional rights of other persons. The common man feels cheated when he finds that those making illegal and unauthorised constructions are supported by the people entrusted with the duty of preparing and executing master plan/development plan/zonal plan. The reports of demolition of hutments and jhuggi jhopris belonging to poor and disadvantaged section of the society frequently appear in the print media but one seldom gets to read about demolition of illegally/unauthorisedly constructed multistoried structure raised by economically affluent people. The reports of demolition of hutments and jhuggi jhopris belonging to poor and disadvantaged section of the society frequently appear in the print media but one seldom gets to read about demolition of illegally/unauthorisedly constructed multistoried structure raised by economically affluent people. The failure of the State apparatus to take prompt action to demolish such illegal constructions has convinced the citizens that planning laws are enforced only against poor and all compromises are made by the State machinery when it is required to deal with those who have money power or unholy nexus with the power corridors.” 15. In case of Pratibha Coop. Housing Society Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, reported in (1991) 3 SCC 341 the Supreme Court observed as under : “Before parting with the case we would like to observe that this case should be a pointer to all the builders that making of unauthorised constructions never pays and is against the interest of the society at large. The rules, regulations and byelaws are made by the Corporations or development authorities taking in view the larger public interest of the society and it is the bounden duty of the citizens to obey and follow such rules which are made for their own benefits.” 16. In case of Shanti Sports Club v. Union of India reported in (2009) 15 SCC 705 , the Supreme Court observed as under : “ In the last four decades, almost all cities, big or small, have seen unplanned growth. In the 21st century, the menace of illegal and unauthorised constructions and encroachments has acquired monstrous proportions and everyone has been paying heavy price for the same. Economically affluent people and those having support of the political and executive apparatus of the State have constructed buildings, commercial complexes, multiplexes, malls, etc. in blatant violation of the municipal and town planning laws, master plans, zonal development plans and even the sanctioned building plans. In most of the cases of illegal or unauthorised constructions, the officers of the municipal and other regulatory bodies turn blind eye either due to the influence of higher functionaries of the State or other extraneous reasons. Those who construct buildings in violation of the relevant statutory provisions, master plan, etc. In most of the cases of illegal or unauthorised constructions, the officers of the municipal and other regulatory bodies turn blind eye either due to the influence of higher functionaries of the State or other extraneous reasons. Those who construct buildings in violation of the relevant statutory provisions, master plan, etc. and those who directly or indirectly abet such violations are totally unmindful of the grave consequences of their actions and/or omissions on the present as well as future generations of the country which will be forced to live in unplanned cities and urban areas. The people belonging to this class do not realise that the constructions made in violation of the relevant laws, master plan or zonal development plan or sanctioned building plan or the building is used for a purpose other than the one specified in the relevant statute or the master plan, etc., such constructions put unbearable burden on the public facilities/amenities like water, electricity, sewerage, etc. apart from creating chaos on the roads. The pollution caused due to traffic congestion affects the health of the road users. The pedestrians and people belonging to weaker sections of the society, who cannot afford the luxury of airconditioned cars, are the worst victims of pollution. They suffer from skin diseases of different types, asthma, allergies and even more dreaded diseases like cancer. It can only be a matter of imagination how much the Government has to spend on the treatment of such persons and also for controlling pollution and adverse impact on the environment due to traffic congestion on the roads and chaotic conditions created due to illegal and unauthorised constructions. This Court has, from time to time, taken cognizance of buildings constructed in violation of municipal and other laws and emphasised that no compromise should be made with the town planning scheme and no relief should be given to the violator of the town planning scheme, etc. on the ground that he has spent substantial amount on construction of the buildings, etc. Unfortunately, despite repeated judgments by this Court and the High Courts, the builders and other affluent people engaged in the construction activities, who have, over the years shown scant respect for regulatory mechanism envisaged in the municipal and other similar laws, as also the master plans, zonal development plans, sanctioned plans, etc., have received encouragement and support from the State apparatus. As and when the Courts have passed orders or the officers of local and other bodies have taken action for ensuring rigorous compliance with laws relating to planned development of the cities and urban areas and issued directions for demolition of the illegal/unauthorised constructions, those in power have come forward to protect the wrongdoers either by issuing administrative orders or enacting laws for regularisation of illegal and unauthorised constructions in the name of compassion and hardship. Such actions have done irreparable harm to the concept of planned development of the cities and urban areas. It is high time that the executive and political apparatus of the State take serious view of the menace of illegal and unauthorised constructions and stop their support to the lobbies of affluent class of builders and others, else even the rural areas of the country will soon witness similar chaotic conditions.” 17. In view of the aforestated legal position settled by the Supreme Court, no such relief as prayed for by the petitioner, could be granted, more particularly when the petitioner himself has illegally encroached and put up illegal construction on the government land without the permission of the Panchayat. Hence, the petition being devoid of merits deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.