Holding

The Supreme Court held that the PIL was not maintainable, the High Court’s conditions amounted to impermissible judicial interference, and the appellants are entitled to immediate possession of the rehabilitated land.

Summary

The Supreme Court examined a public‑interest litigation filed by villagers of Rasana Nana, Gujarat, which challenged the allotment of rehabilitation lands to six original land‑owners whose property had been acquired in 1954 for an agricultural university. The Court held that the writ petition was an abuse of process, filed by encroachers seeking personal redress rather than genuine public interest, and that the petitioners lacked locus standi. It further found that the High Court’s imposition of stringent conditions—prohibiting sale or conversion of the land for fifteen years—constituted impermissible judicial interference in a policy decision and was not supported by any material. The Court noted that the appellants had a legitimate right under the Government’s rehabilitation policy and that no legal right of the respondents had been violated. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court order, dismissed the writ petitions, and directed immediate possession of the land to the appellants without any conditions. The appeal was allowed.

Issues considered

Whether the writ petition filed as a public‑interest litigation is maintainable when it is motivated by personal vendetta and lacks genuine public interest.
Whether the High Court’s imposition of a fifteen‑year restriction on sale and conversion of the rehabilitated land amounts to unlawful judicial interference in an administrative policy decision.
Whether the appellants are entitled to possession of the rehabilitated land under the Government’s rehabilitation policy and related statutory provisions.

Legislation cited

Subjects

public interest litigationmaintainabilitylocus standiadministrative lawpolicy decisionrehabilitationland acquisitionjudicial interferenceconditions on land transferTransfer of Property ActBombay Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act

Judgment

A KANSING KALUSING THAKORE AND ORS.
l-:
RABARI MAGANBHAI VASHRAMBHAI AND ORS.

NOVEMBER 20, 2006

B [DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND AL TAMAS KABIR, JJ.]

Public Interest Litigation-Founded on personal vendetta-
Maintainability of-Held, not maintainable since not aimed at redressal of
C genuine public wrong or public injury- On facts, no case made out even on
merits, since there was no violation of any legal right-Petitioners had
suppressed material facts and acted with mala fide intentions-Constitution
of India, 1950-Article 226.

Administrative Law-Administrative action in pursuance of policy
D decision-Scope for judicial review-Discussed.
The State Government acquired land belonging to Appellant!' for
establishing an Agricultural University. In lieu thereof, Appellants were
allotted lands in furtherance of a Government policy decision for rehabilitation.
Respondents challenged the allotment by filing writ petition in purported
E public interest. Appellants were not made parties in the writ petition.

Appellants filed application before the High Court challenging
maintainability of the petition on ground that there had been no violation of
legal rights. They further contended that Respondents were headstrong
persons having political clout who made false statements and suppressed
F material facts and further acted with malafide intentions by not making
necessary and appropriate parties. The High Court held that the appellants
had an existing right in terms of the Government policy and lience entitled to
equitable relief but imposed stringent conditions upon the Appellants with
respect to the land in dispute.
G The questions which arose for consideration before this Court are: (I)
Whether the appellants are not entitled to any relief in the Writ petitions
allegedly filed in public interest since they had personal interest involved and
were actually encroachers who had been removed from the land in dispute
and (2) Whether the conditions imposed by the High Court are not sustainable
H 196
KANSING KALUSING THAKORE 1·. RABARI MAGANBHAI VASHRAMBHAI 197

as it amounted to judicial interference in purely administrative acts in A
furtherance of a policy decision of the Government.

Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1. The writ petition filed by the respondents is an abuse of the
process of the Court. By this PIL, the respondents sought to ventilate/redress B
their personal grievances inasmuch as they were able to bold clout in the
village and were enjoying illegal possession in several lands. The appellants
were deliberately not made parties to the writ petition allegedly fi1ed in pubHc
interest. It is a matter of recor<i that the writ petitioners are the people who
encroached upon the land sought to be granted to the appellants and hence
having no legal right to continue their illegal occupancy, devised means to C
approach the High Court in alleged public interest. The maintainability of
the writ petition at the instance of the respondents was specifically raised
before the High Court. The maintainability of the PIL which was in issue was
unfortunately not decided by the High Court. The High Court, ought to have
decided the maintainability of the PIL maintained at the instance of the D
encroachers and land grabbers and rejected the writ petitions at the threshold.
(204-D-G)
1.2. Only a person acting bona fide and having sufficient interest in
the proceeding of PIL will have locus standi and can approach the Court to
wipe out the tears of the poor and needy suffering from violation of their
fundamental rights but not a person for personal gain or private profit or E
political or any oblique consideration. (204-G-H)

1.3. The writ petition fi1ed by the respondents was not aimed at redressal
of genuine public wrong or public injury but founded on personal vendetta. It
is the duty of the High Court not to allow such process to be abused for oblique
considerations and the petitions filed by such busy bodies deserves to be thrown F
out by rejection at the threshold and in appropriate cases with exemplary
costs. (205-A-B)

Jania Dal v. H.S. ChaudhmJ' & Ors., (1992) 4 SCC 305, relied on.

2. J. Even on merits, the respondents have absolutely no case. The G
records filed in this case clearly go to show that there had been no violation
of legal rights so as to maintain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution
oflndia. The petitioners in the PIL had suppressed material facts including
resolutions taken by bona fide authority and acted with ma/a fide intentions

- by not making necessary and appropriate parties. [205-C) H
·"
198 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 9 S.C.R.

A 2.2. The appellants' lands were acquired by the State Government in
the year 1954 and as per th<: Government policy, lands of such persons affected
by the take over allotment and/or reservation of separate land had been made
by the competent authority in the adjacent villages. It is also evident that the
lands to be allotted to the appellants was not pasture land and reserved for
B allotment in terms of Government policy and that the appellants were allotted
fands after about 30 years. Under such circumstances, the appellants are the
ones who have suffered inequity for 30 years. The Court is not justified by
the imposition of such stringent conditions and, in particular, imposing a 15
year ban upon the appellants without any rationale, reason and without any
material on record. The stringent conditions imposed by the High Court are
C not sustainable in law and inasmuch as the same amounts to judicial
interference in purely administrative acts when the allegation sought to be
made are only in lieu of lands acquired earlier by the Government in
furtherance ofa policy decision aiming for rehabilitation. By imposing such
conditions, the High Court has jeopardized the rights of the appellants who
have been displaced and suffering for more than 3 decades. The High Court
D also failed to appreciate the legal provision of Section 6 of the T.P. Act when
the transfer of the property can be prohibited only by provision of the law and
not by the judgment or direction referred in the writ petition under Article
226 of the Constitution of India. The only restriction in transferring the land
is contained in Section 43 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act
E and such restricted tenure land can also be transferred ufter obtaining
permission from the collector under the Bombay Land Revenue Code. In the
instant case, by adding these two conditions the entire transfer of the
appellants are given discriminatory treatment [205-D-H; 206-AJ

3. None of the appellants have violated any of the rights guaranteed to
F the petitioners in the writ petition either under the Constitution or under
any other law and hence the PIL filed by the respondents is not at all
maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. The respondent-authorities are
directed to grant possession of the land immediately to the appellants without
insisting for any undertaking from the appellants as directed by the High
G Court. Since the patience of the appellants have been tested for so long by the
State Government and other authorities and also the public interest litigant,
it is not proper for the Government and other appropriate authorities to ask
the appellants to wait for any longer. The Government and the other appropriate
authorities are directed to immediately handover possession of the land allotted
to them by way of rehabilitation. [206-G-H; 207-A-B)
H

..
~
KANSJNG KALUSING lHAKORE 1•. RABARJ MAGANBHAI VASHRAMBHAI [LAKSHMANAN, J.J J99

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION :Civil Appeal No. 5089 of2006. A
From the Judgments and Orders dated 4-8-2005 and 11-10-2005 of the
High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in S.C.A. No. 14475/2004 and M.C.A. for
Review No. 2171/2005 in S.C.A. No. 14475/2004 respectively.

U.U. Lalit, Atul Nanda, Rameeza Hakeem, Rajesh Kumar, Ms. Charu B
Singhal and Abhijiat P. Medh for the appellants.

Hemantika Wahi, Shivangi, Pinky Behera, Rajiv Mehta, Gaurav Agarwal
and Siddhartha Chowdhury for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by c
DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, J. Leave granted.

This is a Public Interest Litigation (in short 'PIL') by the villagers of
Rasana Nana in Gujarat. The appellants 1-6, who are the respondents in the
public interest litigations before the High Court, are the appellants in this D
appeal who also belong to the same village.

In this PIL, the following question of law of great public importance
arise for consideration of this Court which is, "whether the High Court failed
to appreciate that the process for rehabilitation was under a policy decision
of the Government of Gujarat and the lands being allotted to the appellants E
as an administrative act, which allotments was in lieu of the lands of the
appellants acquired by the Government decades earlier, the judicial interference
in the decision making process and policy of the Government not warranted
in the facts of the case."

The appellants' lands were acquired by the State Government in the F
year 1954. This was in terms of Section 8 of the Bombay Merged Territory
and Areas (Jagir Abolition Act) of 1953. The reason for the acquirement of ·
the lands of the appellants by the State Government was for the establishment
of the Dantiwada Agricultural University. As per the Government Policy,
lands of such persons affected by the take over, allotment and/or reservation G
of separate land had been made by the competent authority in the adjacent
villages, including village Rasana Nana.

The appellants herein are challenging only that part of the impugned
order which affects their absolute right over the land given to them in lieu
of their land which was surrendered by them for the purpose of establishment H
.,
~

200 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 9 S.C.R.

A of the Agricultural University.

Land in survey Nos. 125 and 126 in village Rasna Nana though eannarked
for rehabilitation was however not handed over to the persons affected by
the take over of the lands for the purpose of establishment of the University.
Several correspondences were made to the competent authority but for one
B reason or another, the land in the said survey nos. could not be handed over.
In the year 2003, some of the appellants approached the High Court through
3 separate applications contending that although most of the persons affected
had been given lands as per Government allotment policy dated 18.07.1973
and l l.02.1997 the appellants had been subjected to inequitable treatment.
c Three orders on different dates, i.e. on 20.09.2003, 14.10.2003 and 26.04.2004
were passed in the aforesaid 3 applications by the High Court. Directions
were given to the competent authorities to consider and examine the case of
each appellant and to take appropriate decision thereafter in terms of the
policy framed by the State Government.

D On 09.08.2004, the Deputy Collector passed 3 separate orders. He verified
individual cases and took a final decision after consultation with the Collector
• whereby the reserved lands at survey Nos. 125 and 126 of village Rasana
Nana were directed to be granted over to the appellants who also paid the
occupancy price subsequently. It is stated that the order of the Deputy
Collector was in furtherance of the policy decision of the State and was part
E of an Administrative Act. The appellants' claims were based upon the principles
of legitimate expectation and the reliefs claimed by them were equitable in
nature.

In October, 2004, five persons c.f the said village filed a petition before
the High Court purportedly under public interest. They claimed themselves
F
to be "public spirited individuals". In this petition, the challenge was to the
3 orders passed by the Deputy Collector allotting land from survey Nos. I 25
and 126 of Village Rasana Nana and no challenge \\ias made to the other
allotments ofthe said village. It was contended that the lands allocated by
this order was reserved for grazing of cattle i.e. Gauchar lands the allotment/
G settlement of which would affect the breeding of cattle in the village, such
lands also serve as the water needs of the village.

The appellants were deliberately not made parties in the writ petitions
filed allegedly in public interest. According to the appellants, the petitioners
in the alleged PIL are people holding clout in the village Rasana Nana and
H who were all along enjoying illegal possession of the lands contained in
~·
KANSING KALUSING TIIAKORE '" RABARI MAGANBHAI VASHRAMBHAI [LAKSHMANAN, J.J20}

survey Nos. 125 and 126. A
In December, 2004, an application was filed by the present appellants
before the High Court and impleaded as respondents in the alleged PIL. This
application was allowed by the High Court. The Sarpanch of the village filed
an affidavit-in-reply opposing the relief prayed for in the writ petition. It was
stated that the lands in survey Nos. 125 and 126 were deemed to be Government B
lands w .e.f. 01.08.1954 and were never Gauchar lands or vested in the
Panchayat body.

The appellants herein also filed an affidavit in reply contending that:

(a) There had been no violation of legal rights so as to maintain a C
petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(b) The petitioners in the alleged PIL had made false statements in
as much as they were headstrong persons of the village having
political clout.
(c) The petitioners in the PIL had suppressed material facts including D
resolutions taken by Panchayat Authority.

(d) The petitioners in the PIL had acted with malafide intentions by
not making necessary and appropriate parties.

By virtue of the impugned order dated 04.08.2005, the High Court E
arrived at a conclusion that there was hardly any material to indicate that the
land in question was pasture land and that such land was in fact reserved
for the rehabilitation of persons who were adversely affected by the acquisition
of their lands for the establishment of the agricultural university and that the
appellants herein had an existing right in terms of the Government poliCy and F
hence entitled to equitable relief. The High Court did not find any infirmity
in the order of the Deputy Collector dated 09.08.2004. However, an argument
was advanced on behalf of the public interest litigants contending that the
grantees i.e. the appellants herein would not use the land for agricultural
purposes and would sell it away. The High Court imposed the following
conditions:- G
I. The respondent Nos. 4 to 53 will not convert the land into N.A.
but they will use the land only for agricultural purpose.

II. The· respondent Nos.4 to 53 shall not transfer the land either by
sale or in any other manner directly or indirectly by executing H
202 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006) SUPP. 9 S.C.R.

A power of attorney, to any other party and even if such power of
attorney is already given in favour of the third party, the concerned
respondents shall revoke the same before receiving the possession.

The aforesaid conditions imposed by the High Court will remain in force
for a period of 15 years from the date of possession of the land.
B
The Deputy_ Collector, Palanpur was directed to see that these
respondents give undertaking in writing to comply with the aforesaid
conditions imposed by the High Court. Unless such undertaking is given, the
possession shall not be granted to such respondents. The Deputy Collector
was further directed to ensure before giving possession of land that no need
C of Power of Attorney to be executed by any of the respondents in favour of
any other party. If it is found to be so, he shall forthwith call upon the said
respondent to revoke it and render it ineffective. He is further directed that
unless there is strict compliance of the aforesaid terms and conditions by the
said respondents, he shall not put them into possession of the land in
D question.

The High Court, thereafter, directed the Deputy Collector to give
possession to the appellants only .after taking written .undertakings of
compliance of the aforesaid conditions. it is this portion of the order which
the appellants have challenged.
E
The appellants preferred a revision petition before the High Court which,
on 11.10.2005, was also dismissed. Aggrieved by the orders passed by tlte
High Court, the appellants have preferred the above civil appeals.

We heard Mr. U.U. Lalit, learned senior counsel for the appellants and
F Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Mr. Rajiv Mehta and Mr. Gaurav Agarwal assisted by
Mr. Siddhartha Chowdhury, learned counsel for the respective respondents.

We have perused the resolution passed by the Government of Gujarat
dated 18.07.1973, 11.02.1997 and the PIL filed by the respondents herein and
the counter affidavit and reply filed by the respective parties and also the
G various orders passed by the High Court of Gujarat including ~he judgment
in appeal.

Mr. U.U. Lalit, learned senior counsel took us through the relevant
pleadings and also the judgments and other records. He contended that the
High Court was not correct in its approach of imposing further conditions
H
KANSING KALUSING THAKORE 1•. RABARI MAGANBHAI VASHRAMBHAI [LAKSHMANAN, J.J 203

once it was evident that the lands to be allotted to the appellants was not A
pasture lands and reserved for allotment in terms of the Government policy.
He further contended that the conditions imposed by the High Court was not
....,.
within the ambit and scope of the PIL more particularly when the maintainability
of the PIL was in issue and not decided. It was further urged that the
appellants who were being allotted lands after about 30 years suffered inequity
by imposition of such conditions by the High Court inasmuch as many
B
persons (whose lands had also been taken and who were given/allotted lands
decades earlier) were also subjected to such restrictions and conditions. He
also submitted that the High Court was not correct in imposing a 15 year ban/
restriction upon the appellants without any rationale, reason and without any
material on record. According to Mr. Lalit, the stringent conditions imposed c
by the High Court are not sustainable in law inasmuch as the same amounts
to judicial interference in purely administrative acts where there is no
involvement of any ma/a fide and allocations sought to be made are only in
lieu of lands acquired earlier by the Government, in furtherance of a policy
decision aiming for rehabilitation. Arguing further, Mr. Lalit submitted that the
High Court was also not correct in appreciating the fact that the only restriction D
in transferring the land was provided for in Section 43 of the Bombay Tenancy
and Agricultural Land Act and such restricted tenure land can also be
transferred after obtaining permission from the Collector under the Bombay
Land Revenue Code. In the instant case, by adding these two conditions,
entire transfer to the appellants was given a discriminatory treatment. E
Concluding his argument, Mr. Lalit submitted that the High Court was not
right in presuming without any material that the appellants/allottees will sell
their land to the builders for constructing commercial complex.

Learned counsel appearing for the State and for the Sarpanch invited
our attention to the counter affidavit filed in the writ petition. The Deputy F
Collector stated that the petitioners in the PIL had personal interest involved
and they were actually encroachers and had been removed therefrom and that
the process of rehabilitation was a policy decision and that the public interest
litigants does not deserve any relief in the writ petitions.

The Sarpanch of Village Rasana Nana filed an affidavit in reply opposing G
the relief prayed for in the writ petition. It was stated that the lands in survey
Nos. 125 and 126 were deemed to be Government lands w.e.fOI.08.1954 and
were never gauchar lands and are vested in the Panchayat body. It was
further submitted that after receipt of the notice from the High Court, the same
was placed before the Panchayat in its meeting dated 16.02.2005 and the H
-~
204 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 9 S.C.R.

A Panchayat after detailed deliberation and careful consideration taken the
decision by resolving that the Panchayat had no objection in the land being
granted to the ousted persons on account of setting up of Agricultural
University.

Two panchnamas were made in furtherance of orders made by the Circle
B Officer and Surveyor of the Survey Department. It is recorded that all
encroachments in the lands sought to be granted were unauthorized and
possession was recovered. Mr. Gaurav Agarwal, learned counsel for the
contesting respondent, after reiterating the contentions raised in the writ
petition, submitted that (a) the lands allocated by order dated 09.08.2004 was
C not available for any purpose other than to fulfill the water needs for the
population of the village (b) lands so allotted were reserved for grazing i.e.
gauchar land (pasture) and (c) land allocated vide order dated 09.08.2004
would affect cattle breeding.

We have given our careful consideration for the rival submissions made
D by the respective counsel appearing for the respective parties. The writ
petition filed by the respondents herein is an abuse of the process of the
Court. By this PIL, the respondents sought to ventilate/redress their personal
grievances inasmuch as they are able to holding clout in Village Rasana Nana
and were enjoying illegal possession in several lands contained under said
survey Nos. 125 and 126. The appellants herein were deliberately not made
E parties to the writ petition allegedly filed in public interest. It is a matter of
record that the writ petitioners are the people who encroached upon the land
sought to be granted to the appellants herein and hence having no legal right
to continue their illegal occupancy, devised means to approach the High
Court in alleged public· interest. This would be evident from the affidavit of
F the Deputy Collector filed on 24.03. 2005. The maintainability of the writ
petition at the instance of the respondents was specifically raised before the
High Court. The maintainability of the PIL which was in issue was unfortunately
not decided by the High Court. The High Court, in our opinion, ought to have
decided the maintainability of the PIL maintained at the instance of the
encroachers and Ian<;! grabbers and rejected the writ petitions at the threshold.
G This Court in a catena of decisions held that only a person acting bonafide
and having sufficient interest in the proceeding of PIL will alone have locus
standi and can approach the Court to wipe out the tears of the poor and
needy suffering from violation of their fundamental rights but not a person
for personal gain or private profit or political or any oblique consideration.
H The High Court ought to have rejected the writ petition at the threshold as
KANSING KALUSING THAKORE 1-. RABARI MAGANBHAI VASHRAMBHAI [LAKSHMANAN, J.J 205

observed by this court in (1992] 4 sec 305 Jania Dal V, HS. Choudhary & A
Ors. In our opinion, the writ petition filed by the respondents was not aimed
at redressal of genuine public wrong or public injury but founded on personal
vendetta. It is the duty of the High Court not to allow such process to be
abused for oblique considerations and the petitions filed by such busy
bodies deserves to be thrown out by rejection at the threshold and in B
appropriate cases with exemplary costs.

Even on merits, the respondents have absolutely no case. The records
filed in this case clearly go to show that there had been no violation of legal
rights so as to maintain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India. The petitioners in the PIL had suppressed material facts including C
resolutions taken by bona fide authority and acted with mala fide intentions
by not making necessary and appropriate parties. We have already reproduced
the conditions/restrictions imposed by the High Court against the appellants
herein. In the instant case, the appellants lands were acquired by the State
Government in the year 1954 and as per the Government policy, lands of such
persons affected by the take over aflotment and/or reservation of separate D
land had been made by the competent authority in the adjacent villages. It
is also evident that the lands to be allotted to the appellants was not pasture
land and reserved for allotment in terms of Government policy and that the
appellants were allotted lands after about 30 years. Under such circumstances,
the appellants are the ones who have suffered inequity for 30 years. The E
Court is not justified by the imposition of such stringent conditions and, in
particular, imposing a 15 year ban upon the appellants without any rationale,
reason and without any material on record. The stringent conditions imposed
by the High Court are not sustainable in law and inasmuch as the same
amounts to judicial interference in purely administrative acts when the allegation
sought to be made are only in lieu of lands acquired earlier by the Government F
in furtherance of a policy decision aiming for rehabilitation. By imposing such
conditions, the High Court has jeopardized the rights of the appellants who
have been displaced and suffering for more than 3 decades. The High Court
also failed to appreciate the legal provision of Section 6 of the T.P. Act when
the transfer of the property can be prohibited only by provision of the law G
and not by the judgment or direction referred in the writ petition under Article
226 of the Constitution of India. The only restriction in transfetring the land
is contained in Section 43 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act
and such restricted tenure land can also be transferred after obtaining
permission from the collector under the Bombay Land Revenue Code. In the
H
206 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 9 S.C.R.
..,..
A instant case, ~y adding these two conditions the entire transfer of the
appellants are given discriminatory treatment. The Government of Gujarat, by
its resolution dated 18.07 .1973, considered the question of granting the land
to the affected account holders of these villagers in lieu of the land at the
place possible was under consideration of the government and after
B consideration the government has resolved to adopt the policy to the affected
account holders.

It is resolved to grant the land to the account holders, whose lands
sha~Ibe acquired for establishing the Head Quarter of the Agricultural
University, including the Main Campus, as per the following norms in cases
C where the land shall be granted to them without the irrigation facility.

LAND TO BE ACQUIRED/ LAND TO BE GRANTED
ACQUIRED LAND. IN EXCHANGE.

I. Upto 4 Acre~ Entire land.

D 2. 4 Acres upto 12 Acres 4 Acres.
3. 12 Acres to 15 Acres I/3rd portion of the acquired land.
4. Exceeding 15 Acres. 5 Acres.

If the land, which is likely to get the benefit of irrigation in near future,
E will be granted to the affected account holders, it is resolved to grant the land
to them as per the following norms :
LAND TO BE ACQUIRED/ LAND TO BE GRANTED
ACQUIRED LAND. IN EXCHANGE.

I. Upto 3 Acres Entire land.
F
2. Above .3 Acres and 3 Acres.
Upto 9 Acres.

3. Above 9 Acres and I/3rd portion of
upto 12 Acres. Acquired land.
G 4. Above 12 Acres. 4 Acres.

[n our opinion, none of the appellants have violated any of the rights
guaranteed to the petitioner:> in the writ petition either under the Constitution
or under any other law and hence the PIL filed by the respondents herein is
not at all maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. Now that the civil appeals
H
KANSING KALUSING lHAKORE '" RABARI MAGANBHAI VASHRAMBHAI [LAKSHMANAN, J.) 207

are allowed, we direct the respondent-authorities to grant possession of the A
land immediately to the appellants without insisting for any undertaking from
the appellants as directed by the High Court in its impugned judgment. Since
the patience of the appellants have been tested for so long by the State
Government and other authorities and also the public interest litigant, it is not·
proper for the Government and other appropriate authorities to ask the B
appellants to wait for any longer.

We direct the government and the other appropriate authorities to
immediately handover possession of the land allotted to them by way of
rehabilitation.

Accordingly, we dismiss the writ petitions filed by the respondents and C
allow the above civil appeal and set aside the order impugned in these civil
..,. appeals passed by the High Court of Gujarat. However, we order no costs .

B.B.B. Appeal allowed.

.
·

.,,..