C/SCA/15041/2025 ORDER DATED: 11/11/2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15041 of 2025 ========================================================== VIPINBHAI NATWARBHAI PARMAR Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. ========================================================== Appearance: MR AMRISH K PANDYA(3219) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MS. AISHWARYA CHAUDHARY, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 MR AMIT N PATEL(2749) for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MAUNA M. BHATT Date : 11/11/2025 ORAL ORDER 1. This petition is filed with a prayer to decide the appeals of the petitioner dated 23.06.2025 (Annexure-I, Page No. 47) and 04.09.2025 (Annexure-J, Page No. 50). A prayer with regard to decide the complaint dated 16.09.2025 of the petitioner (Anneuxre-A, Page No. 21) by the District Development Office, Vadodara was also made. 2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Amrish Pandya for the petitioner. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that petitioner herein is owner and resident of House No. 45 in village Mastupura, Taluka Waghodia, District Vadodara. The said house is situated in property No. 185 at Parmarfalia and owned by mother of the petitioner – Mrs. Shardaben Natvarbhai Parmar. The petitioner along with his family and mother are residing in the said house since number of years. In support learned advocate has relied upon assessment of tax receipts. Learned advocate further submitted that the petitioner constructed a wall and the toilet on the eastern side of his house for sanitation purpose. The said construction was done C/SCA/15041/2025 ORDER DATED: 11/11/2025 on the land owned by him and there is no construction done on the land belonging to the Gram Panchayat. However, on a complaint made to the Gram Panchayat by a neighbor, action of demolition of toilet and compound wall as done without issuance of notice to the petitioner and without providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 2.1 Learned advocate for the petitioner in support of his submissions relied upon Rule 55 of the Gujarat Panchayats (Procedure) Rules, 1997 (for short ‘the Rules, 1997’) to submit that as per the Rules, 1997 a prior notice and hearing is mandatory requirement which has not been done in this case. Therefore, the action taken of demolition of the compound wall and the toilet deserves to be restored by the Gram Panchayat. Learned advocate submitted that the Sarpanch on a complaint made by the neighbor has taken high-handed action and therefore action against the Sarpanch is also necessitated for which this petition is filed. 2.2 Learned advocate for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner has preferred appeal before the District Development Officer dated 23.06.2025 and the same is pending. Moreover, the complaint against Sarpanch is also done vide letter dated 04.09.2025 and the same is pending. Hence, learned advocate submitted that directions may be issued to decide the same. 3. Learned advocate Mr. Amit Patel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 submitted that he has filed his vakalatnama for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and requested for time to file reply C/SCA/15041/2025 ORDER DATED: 11/11/2025 since instructions are yet to be received as he is appearing on advance copy. However, learned advocate could not dispute the pendency of appeal under Section 242 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 dated 23.06.2025 as also the complaint against the Sarpanch dated 16.09.2025 (Page No. 21). 4. Considered the submissions and the documents on record. The vakalatnama filed by learned advocate Mr. Amit Patel on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 is ordered to be taken on record. It is noticed that the owner of the property was served with the notice and thereafter, without providing opportunity of hearing demolition action of compound wall and toilet was done. However, at this stage, it is evident from record that the petitioner therefore made a compliant to the District Development Officer, Vadodara on 16.09.2025 against respondent Nos. 4 and 5. Moreover, appeals under Section 242 of the Act, 1993 challenging the notices dated 06.06.2025 and 03.09.2025 are preferred and the same are pending adjudication. 5. Noticing the pendency of the appeal and the decision on the complaint, respondent No. 2 is directed to decide the appeal as well as the complaint of the petitioner as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of this order. 6. With the above direction, present petition is disposed of. Direct service is permitted. (MAUNA M. BHATT,J) SHRIJIT PILLAI Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge. Digitally signed by: PILLAI SHRIJIT P(HC01400), PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 11/11/2025 17:45:23