Gujarat HC Rejects Heirs’ Plea To Protect Their Wada Possession On Land Allotted To Health Department

The petitioners claimed possession of wada land at Village Magarwa, Survey No. 530 Paiki 1 Paiki 1, and sought its regularisation.

The Collector had allotted the land to the Health Department in 2020; the order was modified in 2021 to specify the survey number.

Respondent No. 10 later alleged that the petitioners had encroached on the land and issued a notice on 17 October 2026 for removal of the encroachment.

The petitioners challenged that notice and the Collector’s orders, and sought consideration of their representations for regularisation.

Respondent No. 10 maintained that the land was open when allotted and that the petitioners had no legal entitlement to occupy it.

The Court found that the petitioners had no established legal entitlement to remain in possession and had not pursued a civil remedy to establish their rights.

The Court applied the principle that Article 226 relief should not be used to protect the possessory rights of an illegal encroacher on Government land, relying on Ved Prakash Manchanda v. Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 2610, which referred to Jagpal Singh v. State of Punjab, (2011) 11 SCC 396, and M.I. Builders (P) Ltd. v. Radhey Shyam Sahu, (1999) 6 SCC 464.

It also relied on Joginder v. State of Haryana, (2021) 3 SCC 300, for the rule that occupation of Government or Panchayat land cannot be regularised as of right; regularisation is available only under the applicable State policy and on fulfilment of its conditions.

The Court further referred to State of Odisha v. Bichitrananda Das, (2020) 12 SCC 649, for the principle that an applicant seeking a policy benefit must comply with its terms.

The Court considered its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

The Collector had allotted the land to the Health Department, and the petitioners did not establish any legal entitlement to retain possession or show that they had obtained a civil-law determination of their rights.

Applying the principles governing encroachments on Government land, the Court held that the petitioners could not use its discretionary writ jurisdiction to protect their possession.

Nor could their request for regularisation, without an established entitlement under an applicable policy or rules, justify relief against the notice.

It dismissed the petition, thereby declining to quash the notice or grant the other reliefs sought.