The land is part of a bigger parcel acquired by the State Government in 1961 for residential purposes. Its current market value is estimated to be around Rs 7 crore. A group of farmers, who are claiming possession of the land, say it was an Inami plot of which they were tenants. Represented by Bhikhaji Motiji Thakor, they were declared owners under the Tenancy Act of 1957, they claim.

As the land was acquired by the collectorate for the society, the farmers appealed and won the case in High Court. But the government challenged the decision in the Supreme Court and won the case in 1975.

Subsequently, under an agreement between the farmers and the society in 1978, it was decided the farmers would get possession of plot numbers 280-B and 286, which together measured around 16,000 sq yards.

In April 1995, however, a public notice in newspapers claimed that the society owned the plots in question. The farmers -- namely, Purshottam A Patel, Jayesh D Patel, Chimanlal P Patel and Nimesh V Patel -- challenged this, reminding the society on April 25, 1995 that it was merely a custodian of the plot, not its owner.

However, Haresh Shah, present secretary of Yogeshwarnagar Society, does not remember having received any such communication from these farmers. ``We have cleared every hurdle in removal of encroachments and getting possession of the land; now there's nothing pending in this case'', he said.

The office of the deputy collector (land acquisition), too, said no matter was pending in this case.

The farmers, however, are adamant on getting the possession of the vacated land. ``There is no way we cannot get possession of the land'', they said.

Meanwhile, 56 Rabari families are staging a dharna at the plot site, saying that they will not move from the spot until they are allotted alternative sites. A retired bureaucrat was seen telling them on Monday how they could achieve their objective.The demonstrators alleged that the society had deviated from its original purpose of residential use with the construction of a commercial building on the common plot, bang on the main road. ``How can they do so?'', they asked.

Shah agreed that it is a wrongful act but added, ``It has been done by one of our members whithout the society's express permission and we are taking action against this''.