1. This petition is filed by Samadhiyala Gram Panchayat against the order dt. 3rd Feb, 1978 passed by the Collector, Bhaynagar resuming a portion of survey No. 105/A admeasuring 4 acres 0 Guntha out of 258 acres, 23 gunthas of Gauchar (grazing) land granted to the petitioner Panchayat by the Collector, Bhavnagar by his office order dt. 10th April 1957. The reason for resumption of the aforesaid 4 acres of land was to allot the same to respondent No. 3 for his personal cultivation.
2. Mr. R. N. Bhatt, the learned Counsel for the petitioner Panchayat has urged that the resumption of the said land can be only under S. 96(4) of the Gujarat Panchayats Act 1961. Which empowers the State Government to resume land, which it had earlier granted. Mr. Bhatt has urged that the Government can resume land under S. 960) only for a public purpose and according to him, allotting land to respondent No. 3 for his personal cultivation cannot be regarded as a public purpose. Hence, according to him, the impugned order of Collector, Bhavnagar is illegal and void.
3. Miss K. N. Valikarimwala, the learned Assistant Government Pleader, appearing for respondents Nos. -1 & 2 relying on the affidavitin-reply of the Collector, Bhavnagar has urged that respondent No. 3 is a Harijan and that he is landless. Therefore, allotting Government wasteland which is capable of being cultivated to landless Harijan for cultivation is a public purpose. Miss Valikarimwala has urged that it is clearly a public purpose to bring as much land under cultivation as it is possible and also according to her, it is undoubtedly a public purpose to allot land to a landless member of the backward class for the purpose of his personal cultivation. The submission of Miss Valikarimwala must be accepted. It is undoubtedly a public purpose to bring part of a Gauchar (grazing) land under cultivation to augment food output. It is also a public purpose to allot land to a member of backward class for his personal cultivation. Hence, the challenge of the petitioner Gram Panchayat against resumption must fail. In the result, the petition is rejected. Rule discharged with no order as to costs.
4. Rule discharged.