ORDER : 1. Both these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have been filed almost on similar issue and as such, upon request of learned advocates appearing in both these matters, hearing was opened up conjointly and as such, the petitions are being disposed of by present common order by treating Special Civil Application No. 12870 of 2020 as a lead matter and for the sake of convenience, the facts are taken from lead matter. 2. Special Civil Application No. 12870 of 2020 is filed by two petitioners challenging issuance of notice dated 21.09.2020 issued by the respondent - Gram Panchayat Buhari, and as a consequence thereof, a request is made to maintain status-quo. The premise on which the petitioners have approached this Court is that petitioner no. 1 is selling ‘Vegetables’ sitting in Bazar Faliya at the place in question since about 40-50 years, whereas petitioner no. 2 is selling ‘Pan masala’ from the lorry (Lari) in the same area, which is also situated in Bazar Faliya. The whole market is running from this area and there are many more persons who are carrying their livelihood by running small business since years together. The petitioners are also paying charges for sitting and selling the articles to the Gram Panchayat, Buhari. However, petitioner no. 1 received notice from the respondent - Gram Panchayat by indicating to vacate the unauthorized encroachment within a period of seven days and this notice impugned in the petition dated 21.09.2020 appears to be on the basis of one complaint filed by Mrs. Premilaben Narendrakumar Shah, resident of Village Buhari. As these businesses are going on in front of her house since long and on account this placement of lorry (Lari) carrying on business, anti social elements are creating problems and on the basis of this impugned notice, petitioner no. 1 was sought to be removed, whereas petitioner no. 2 on the similar line was to be dealt with, but at the relevant point of time, could not receive the notice, and upon apprehension has immediately approached this Court along with petitioner no. 1 as the very said action was sought to be initiated. In the aforesaid petition, notice was issued by an order dated 23.10.2020, which reads as under :- “Issue notice returnable on 29.10.2020. 1 as the very said action was sought to be initiated. In the aforesaid petition, notice was issued by an order dated 23.10.2020, which reads as under :- “Issue notice returnable on 29.10.2020. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioners relies upon the decision of this Court dated 27.07.2015 in Special Civil Application No. 9026 of 2014, wherein after considering the Rule 55 of the Gujarat Panchayats (Procedure) Rules, 1997, this Court has considered to grant opportunity of personal hearing even where notice is issued under Section 105 of the Gujarat Panchayat Act. The petitioners are permitted to be served by speed post at the cost of the petitioners and also by E-mail.” 3. So far as petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 2332 of 2021 is concerned, this petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by Mrs. Premilaben Narendrakumar Shah who objected to the sitting of the petitioners along with other persons and has submitted that though orders have been passed on 01.10.2020, 14.10.2020 and 20.10.2020, by respondent no. 3 - District Development Officer, but the same under one pretext or the other have not been implemented and, therefore, for enforcement of such orders, prayers have been made in the petition, which ultimately results into removal of the petitioners of the lead matter along with other persons. The said petition came up for consideration before the Court on 08.02.2021 and looking to the similarity of facts and the ultimate outcome which may take place, the Court was pleased to issue notice and ordered to place this matter along with the aforesaid lead matter and with the aforesaid background, both these petitions today have come up for consideration before this Court, in which learned advocates appearing in the respective petitions of both the sides have requested the Court to take up the matter conjointly and accordingly the hearing has taken place. 4. Learned advocate Ms. Kruti M. Shah appearing for the petitioners of the lead matter has contended that the notice which has been issued by the authority dated 21.09.2020, as may be in the form of notice, but it is actually notice-cum-order and as such, before issuance of such, at least a bare minimum opportunity of hearing would have been granted to the petitioners. Learned advocate Ms. Learned advocate Ms. Shah has contended that these petitioners are carrying on their livelihood activity by running a small business over the place since about 40-50 years by now along with other several traders in the very same bazar and only the petitioners are being picked up at the instance of one complaint filed by Mrs. Premilaben Narendrakumar Shah. 4.1. Learned advocate Ms. Shah has submitted that it is a settled position of law that every exercise either it is administrative, quasi judicial or judicial must be in strict compliance of the principles of natural justice and fair play in action. The manner in which the impugned action is initiated by the respondent - Corporation neither any opportunity was given to represent the case nor any personal hearing is extended. Since the action is entailing civil consequence, a bare minimum requirement as a condition precedent ought to have been observed and that having not done, the action is non-est in the eye of law. 4.2. Learned advocate Ms. Shah has further drawn attention to the fact that assuming for the time being that there are powers with the authority under Section 105 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 for removal of encroachments, but the said powers are to be exercised after due application of mind and the encroachment has to be examined and even if it is so, the removal must be within the four corners of the law. Having not done so, the action in question is required to be set aside. 4.3. Apart from that the law further requires that if any material is to be relied against the affected persons, the same must be furnished to the person concerned and here is the case in which at the instance of one private complaint by Mrs. Premilaben Narendrakumar Shah, the action is initiated and thereto, on the basis of the report which has been submitted by the Taluka Development Officer, the petitioners have not been given any opportunity of hearing, but even the basic compliant as well as the report of the Taluka Development Officer are also not furnished and this is a clear violation of the principles of natural justice. For the purpose of strengthening the submissions, learned advocate Ms. For the purpose of strengthening the submissions, learned advocate Ms. Shah has relied upon few decisions and the same are following in number:- “(1) In the case of Ratilal Shankerbhai Patel since Deceased Through Heirs v. State of Gujarat rendered in Special Civil Application No. 9026 of 2014 dated 27.07.2015. (2) In the case of The Collector v. Krishnaveni rendered in Writ Appeal No. 1995 of 2018 dated 03.09.2019 by the High Court of Judicature at Madras. (3) In the case of (Thakore) Budhaji Bhalaji Waghela v. Collector rendered in Special Civil Application No. 20701 of 2016 dated 15.12.2016.” 4.4. By referring to the aforesaid decisions, a contention is raised that the action deserves to be corrected and after granting adequate opportunity, a fresh decision deserves to be taken if so desired and has requested to allow the petition on the aforesaid premise. 5. So far as another cognate petition as referred above is concerned, learned advocate Mr. Jay N. Shah, appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioners of lead petition are the encroaches and despite the fact specific orders have been passed, the authorities have not implemented the same for some extraneous reason. The law requires that unauthorized occupation deserves to be removed especially when the orders have been passed. Learned advocate Mr. Jay Shah has submitted that specific orders by District Development Officer have not been implemented which has constrained the petitioner to approach this Court by way of this petition. It has been further submitted that the petitioner being a lady has filed a specific complaint on account of the aforesaid unauthorized occupation and carrying on the activities in front of her house, serious prejudice is being caused to the petitioner on account of anti social activities which are very much around the area and, hence, left with no other alternative, the petitioner was constrained to approach this Court. 5.1. However, after hearing learned advocate Ms. Kruti Shah in a lead matter, learned advocate Mr. Jay Shah has specifically submitted that his petition also may be disposed of along with the lead matter, since broadly the cause of action is almost similar so far as granting of opportunity is concerned to the petitioners of lead matter and learned advocate Mr. However, after hearing learned advocate Ms. Kruti Shah in a lead matter, learned advocate Mr. Jay Shah has specifically submitted that his petition also may be disposed of along with the lead matter, since broadly the cause of action is almost similar so far as granting of opportunity is concerned to the petitioners of lead matter and learned advocate Mr. Jay Shah has no reservations rather could not confront with contention and, as such, has left it to the discretion of the Court, but has submitted that looking to the manner in which the business is being carried in front of her house, the said exercise if to be undertaken by the authority, after granting opportunity to the petitioners, within a time bound schedule and for that purpose, learned advocate Mr. Jay Shah has requested to dispose of the petition on the line in which the lead matter is to be dealt with and no other contentions have been raised. 6. So far as the respondent - Panchayat is concerned, learned advocate Mr. Ashish Dagli has submitted that the petitioners of the lead matter are unauthorized occupants and, therefore, rightly have been ordered to be removed and has supported the stand of learned advocate Mr. Jay Shah in cognate matter i.e. Special Civil Application No. 2332 of 20201. However, upon consideration of the relevant provisions of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, and on the issue of compliance of the principles of natural justice, after looking at the decisions which have been cited by the learned advocate Ms. Kruti Shah in a lead matter, has left it to the discretion of the Court and rather requested to issue directions in taking appropriate decision within a time frame so that the issue can be set at rest and has requested to dispose of both the petitions by issuing appropriate directions. 7. Mr. Adityasinh J. Jadeja, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondent - State has submitted that since the panchayat has initiated action, the same will have to be put to its logical end, but has candidly submitted that looking to the decisions which have been cited in the lead matter, the said action should be in close scrutiny of principles of natural justice since undisputedly having not being complied with, Mr. Jadeja, learned Assistant Government Pleader has requested the Court to dispose of the petitions by observing appropriately. 8. Jadeja, learned Assistant Government Pleader has requested the Court to dispose of the petitions by observing appropriately. 8. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and having gone through the material on record, it is found that main grievance of Special Civil Application No. 2332 of 2021 is basically to take appropriate action for removal of illegal encroachment or obstruction since despite several representations, the concerned respondent authorities have not taken any action. Now for taking appropriate action against the petitioners in the lead matter, impugned communication dated 21.09.2020 is concerned, the same is not standing on the touch stone of principles of natural justice as this communication is at the instance of the complainant Mrs. Premilaben Narendrakumar Shah and based upon the unilateral report prepared by the Taluka Development Officer and straightway within a period of seven days, the encroachment is ordered to be removed and as such, may be that seven days have been given, but the same is in the form of order and as such, when this exercise is to be undertaken by the authority, the same should be in compliance with the law requirement. It is the settled position of law that when the statute is prescribing the manner in which powers are sought to be exercised, the same shall be exercised in the manner which the statute requires. Here, in the instant case, the powers have been entrusted to the Panchayat under the provisions of Section 105 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, which reads as under :- “Section 105 : Obstruction and encroachment upon public streets and open sites. Here, in the instant case, the powers have been entrusted to the Panchayat under the provisions of Section 105 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, which reads as under :- “Section 105 : Obstruction and encroachment upon public streets and open sites. (1) Whoever, within the limits of a village- (a) builds or sets up any wall, or any fence, rail, post, stall, verandah, platform, plinth, step or structure or thing or any other encroachment, or obstruction, or (b) deposits, or causes to be placed or deposited, any box, bale, package or merchandise, or any other thing, or (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 bye-law 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 unauthorized 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 unauthorized cultivated, on grazing land or any other land not being private property, and may remove any unauthorized 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 authorized 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 sub-section (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) Nothing in sub-section (2) shall prevent the panchayat from permitting any construction referred to in clause (a) or clause (c) of sub-section (1) to stand on such terms and conditions as may be prescribed. (4) The power under sub-section (2) may be exercised in respect of any obstruction, encroachment, or projection referred to therein whether or not such obstruction, encroachment, or projection has been made before or after the village is specified as such under clause (g) of article 243 of the Constitution or before or after the property is vested in the panchayat. (5) Whoever not being duly authorized in that behalf removes earth, sand or other material from, or makes any encroachment in or upon any open site which is not private property, shall, on conviction, be punished with fine and, in the case of an encroachment, with further fine which may extend to twenty five rupees for every day on which the encroachment continues after the date of first conviction. (6) Nothing contained in this section shall prevent the panchayat from allowing any temporary occupation of or erection in, any public street on, occasions of festivals and ceremonies, of the piling of fuel in by-lanes and sites for not more than seven days, and in such manner as not to inconvenience the public or any individual or from allowing any temporary erection on or putting projection over, or temporary occupation of, any such public street or place, or any other purpose in accordance with the bye-laws made under this Act. (7) Where the panchayat finds it difficult to remove any obstruction or encroachment or any crop unauthorised cultivated on grazing lands as referred to in sub-section (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 sub-section (2) and take action to remove the obstruction, encroachment or, as the case may be, the crop. (8) The Taluka Development Officer may, take action referred to in sub-section (7) suo-motu or whenever it is reported to him that though the panchayat was moved to take action under sub-section (2) it has not taken any action for three months: Provided that before taking action suo motu he shall direct the village panchayat to take action and if the panchayat fails to do so within a specified time, the Taluka Development Officer may thereafter take action.” 8.1. Now for carrying the aforesaid provisions, the authority has to act in the four corners of law and for that purpose the procedure is also prescribed under Rule 55 of the Gujarat Panchayat (Procedure) Rules, 1997 and as such, it is quite clear that the statutory provisions have prescribed a specific manner in which powers are sought to be exercised and here in the instant case, undisputedly it appears that the exercise initiated is not in the manner in which the law requires. 9. At this stage, the Court is having assistance from the decision delivered by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the past, basically on the very same provision in Special Civil Application No. 9026 of 2014. 9. At this stage, the Court is having assistance from the decision delivered by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the past, basically on the very same provision in Special Civil Application No. 9026 of 2014. While disposing the petition on 27.07.2015, the learned Single Judge has taken into consideration Section 105 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act which deals with the removal of the encroachment and obstruction or unauthorized construction and for that purpose, the Court has taken into consideration Rule 55 of the Gujarat Panchayats (Procedure) Rules, 1997. While dealing with the such contention and the provisions, the petition came to be disposed of by observing to afford opportunity to the petitioners. The relevant observations contained in para 8, 9, 10 and 11 are reproduced hereunder :- “8. Learned advocate Mr. Kanade appearing for respondent No. 5 submitted that under Rule 55, if the Panchayat is required to afford personal hearing to the petitioner, the petitioner may avail of such opportunity before the Panchayat. 9. In view of the above, Mr. Vyas does not press the present petition at this stage, with a liberty to file reply before the Panchayat against the notice issued to the petitioner under Section 105 of the Act. 10. The petitioner may file such reply before the Gram Panchayat within a period of seven days from today. If the petitioner files such reply within a period of seven days, it will be then for the Panchayat to follow further procedure of giving him persona hearing on the notice issued to the petitioner under Section 105 of the Act and finalize the action taken against the petitioner. 11. The petition is, accordingly, disposed of as not pressed with a liberty to the petitioner to file reply to the notice within the time stipulated and with a direction to the Gram Panchayat to follow the procedure as contemplated under Rule 55 of the Rules including giving of opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner.” 9.1. The aforesaid observations are undisputedly attracting the controversy of the case on hand and here in the instant case, no opportunity was afforded to the petitioners of the lead matter, a case is made out to call for interference. 10. The aforesaid observations are undisputedly attracting the controversy of the case on hand and here in the instant case, no opportunity was afforded to the petitioners of the lead matter, a case is made out to call for interference. 10. It is the settled position of law that the principles of natural justice is applicable in every exercise of powers either administrative quasi judicial or judicial and further such exercise must be with the support of the cogent reasons since the reasons are also part and parcel of the compliance of natural justice and further the affected persons are always to be informed as to why such action is being initiated after affording appropriate opportunity and that having not been done on the case on hand, this Court is inclined to accept the contention raised by the learned advocate for the petitioners in the lead matter and as such another cognate petition is basically for taking action against the unauthorized construction, both these petitions deserves to be disposed of on the following line, which would meet the ends of justice and this disposal of the petition on the line on which the Court has suggested there is a concurrence on behalf of the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties in both the petitions. Hence, the following order is passed :- 10.1. The impugned action dated 21.09.2020 is hereby quashed and set aside with a consequential direction upon the concerned respondent authority to afford the opportunity to the petitioners within a period of two weeks from today as to why they should not be removed. 10.2. Upon such affording of an opportunity, the petitioners are directed to respond to the notice which may be issued for grant of opportunity of hearing to them and after such grant of opportunity, the concerned respondent authority is directed to take appropriate decision in accordance with law by assigning appropriate reasons. 10.3. The said exercise as has been agreed upon is to be undertaken and concluded within a period of four weeks thereafter and it is needless to clarify that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merit with regard to any of the issues raised in the petition, since action is set aside only on account of violation of the principles of natural justice. 10.4. 10.4. It would be open for the authority to take appropriate decision strictly in accordance with law on the basis of relevant material available on record. 11. Since the aforesaid directions are issued in the lead matter, no further order deserves to be passed in a cognate matter i.e. Special Civil Application No. 2332 of 2021 as broadly concurred with the disposal of the lead matter. 12. With the aforesaid observations and directions, both the petitions stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms.