Panchayat encroachment proceedings must afford a hearing under Rule 55(2).

The petitioner challenged notices dated 17 and 27 July 2026 directing removal of an alleged encroachment on Government land within two days.

The petitioner’s limited grievance was that the procedure under Rule 55(2) of the Gujarat Panchayats (Procedure) Rules, 1997 had not been followed, particularly because no personal hearing had been provided.

The Court noted that no documents supporting the petitioner’s rights to the shop had been produced with the petition. The respondents alleged that the construction was on Government land, but their allegations were not determined on the merits.

Section 105 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 and Rule 55(2) of the Gujarat Panchayats (Procedure) Rules, 1997 formed the statutory basis for considering the procedure applicable to the notices; the Court proceeded on the basis that Rule 55(2) required an opportunity of personal hearing.

The Court also referred to Wind Word India Ltd. v. Shree Tebhada Gram Panchayat, reported at 2023(0)AIJEL-HC-245521, relied upon by the petitioner. The judgment does not set out any further rule from that precedent.

The respondents did not controvert that the procedure under Rule 55(2) had not been followed.

Although the notices allowed only two days to produce supporting documents and the petitioner had produced no such documents with the petition, the Court treated the petitioner’s grievance as procedural and did not decide the competing claims to the land or the merits of the alleged encroachment.

It therefore directed that the notices operate as show-cause notices, with additional time to submit documents and an opportunity for the petitioner’s representative to be heard.

The notices dated 17 and 27 July 2026 were to be treated as show-cause notices, allowing the petitioner seven days—to 24 October 2026—to produce any supporting documents, and a hearing was to be provided to the petitioner’s representative.

If the petitioner failed to justify the claim that there was no encroachment, the respondents could take appropriate action in accordance with law after 24 October 2026. Rule was made absolute to that extent, with no order as to costs.