Section 105 eviction notices must comply with Rule 55’s notice and hearing requirements.

The petitioners, members of Scheduled Tribes, claimed that their family had possessed and cultivated land at Village Unchvaniya since 1954 and that the Gram Panchayat allotted it to their father for cultivation in 1965.

They challenged notices issued under Section 105 of the Gujarat Panchayat Act, 1993, and a Taluka Development Officer’s communication rejecting their request for permanent allotment because the land was classified as Gauchar land.

The respondent authority later sought permission to withdraw the notices and issue fresh notices in accordance with law.

The petitioners also relied on an assurance made by the Gram Panchayat in an earlier civil suit, which they withdrew in 2021.

1. Whether the impugned notices under Section 105 could be withdrawn and fresh notices issued in compliance with Rule 55(2) of the Gujarat Panchayat (Procedure) Rules, 1997.

2. Whether the Taluka Development Officer’s communication rejecting the petitioners’ request for allotment of the land as Gauchar land was liable to be set aside.

Section 105 of the Gujarat Panchayat Act, 1993, read with Rule 55(2) of the Gujarat Panchayat (Procedure) Rules, 1997, requires a person facing proposed action to receive the prescribed notice and an opportunity to respond and be heard.

In Wind World India Ltd. v. Shree Tebhada Gram Panchayat, Through its Sarpanch, 2023 (0) AIJEL-HC 245521, the Court explained that Rule 55 requires seven clear days’ notice, particulars of the proposed action, the last date for a written reply, and details of the personal hearing.

The Court also relied on the Collector, Dahod’s 18 March 2011 communication directing that the Gauchar land not be allotted and that encroachments be removed.

The authority’s affidavit sought withdrawal of the impugned notices and issuance of fresh notices in accordance with Section 105 and Rule 55(2). The Court therefore disposed of the notice-related controversy on that basis, requiring the petitioners to receive the procedural opportunity prescribed by the Rules.

As to the allotment communication, the Court held that the earlier settlement in the civil suit could not prevent the authorities from rejecting the request because the officer’s statement was said to be contrary to law and disciplinary proceedings had been initiated against that officer.

The 2011 Collector’s communication also supported the direction not to allot the Gauchar land. Although the Court noted that no explanation had been given for the authorities’ failure to act after 2011, it found no infirmity in the TDO’s 19 May 2025 communication.

The challenge to the TDO’s communication dated 19 May 2025 was rejected; the Rule was discharged.