Didn't Mend His Ways: Gujarat HC Slams District Development Officer For Non-Compliance Of Orders On Removing Encroachment From Grazing Land

Observing that he has "no regard" for the court, the Gujarat High Court expressed its displeasure with District Development Officer (DDO) of Banaskantha, Palanpur for non compliance of the court's earlier orders on removal of encroachments on Gauchar land (grazing land) in Salla village. The court further noted that the officer in his subsequent affidavit had not given any details as to the action taken by him as averment on issuance of notice for removal of encroachment to 22 persons was absent. On February 7 the high court had issued contempt notice to the officer after noting that while reports had been submitted to him by the concerned Taluka Development Officer and the Deputy District Panchayat officer, however the fact remained that nothing had been done by the DDO "at his own level". The court had then noted that the DDO merely referred to the reports by his subordinate. The court had asked the officer to explain why proceedings for deliberate "non-compliance" of court orders be not taken against him.Thereafter on February 14, the division bench of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Pranav Trivedi in its order observed that while the officer had tendered an unconditional apology for not complying with the court's earlier orders, he had still "not complied with the directions contained" therein in their true letter and spirit. The court further said, “…it is evident that the officer posted as District Development Officer, Banaskantha has no regards for this Court. Inspite of our repeated orders, initially he did not submit any response at all and the response submitted after the order dated 17.01.2025 was cursory, which has led to the issuance of the contempt notice vide order dated 07.02.2025. Still the officer posted as District Development Officer, Banaskantha, District Panchayat, Palanpur has not mend his ways and submitted an undated report to this Court without any proper details with regard to the action taken by him.We, therefore, find it a case of clear non-compliance of the orders of this Court. As the explanation offered by the Officer is to the notice dated 07.02.2025 is not to the satisfaction of the Court, this Court has no option but to frame charges for non-compliance of the orders of this Court”. However at this stage the counsel appearing for the officer "made a vehement appeal" to grant one last opportunity to the officer to take "corrective measures". In view of the same the court listed the matter on March 21. The court in its order noted the officer's affidavit and said that assertion in it is again based on the report submitted by the Taluka Development Officer, whereas by the court in its January 17 order had categorically directed the officer to submit response to the direction issued by the Collector/District Magistrate, Banaskantha where the former was asked to take immediate steps under Section 105 of the Gujarat Panchayat Act' 1993 for removal of encroachments over the lands in question which is a 'gauchar' land for grazing the cattle. "Till date, the deponent who is posted as the District Development Officer, Banaskantha has not answered the query of the Court demonstrating as to what steps have been taken by him in compliance of the directions issued by the Collector, Banaskantha in the aforesaid communication," the order notes.It further noted that the officer in his February 12 affidavit had submitted that he had prepared a detailed report dated February 11 after his visit to the site on February 11 and verification of the records. The court however noted that the DDO in his affidavit had again referred to the report of the Taluka Development Officer wherein it is indicated that there are 22 encroachers over the land bearing Revenue Survey No. 751. The court further noted that the while there was no information on any action taken against encroachers, even the report that was submitted stated to be prepared by the DDO was "undated"."However, action if any, been taken against any of the encroachers has not been brought on record. It seems that even notice for removal of encroachments has not been issued to the occupants at the ends of District Development Officer as there is no averments in this regard. The report submitted by the officer appended at page '324' of the paper book which is stated to have been prepared by him on 12.02.2025 is undated," it said. Case Title: Mulchand Motibhai Prajapati vs State of Gujarat Click Here To Read/Download Order

Didn't Mend His Ways: Gujarat HC Slams District Development Officer For Non-Compliance Of Orders On Removing Encroachment From Grazing Land

Lovina B Thakkar

Tags