Appeal
No. 102/07
Angoori
Devi v/s
Gaon Sabha Daulatpur
& Ors.
IN
THE COURT OF DY. COMMISSIONER & COLLECTOR
DISTRICT SOUTH WEST,
KAPASHERA, DELHI
Angoori
Devi ............................ Appellant
Vs.
Gaon Sabha Daulatpur &
Ors ............................. Respondent
JUDGEMENT
This
shall dispose of the appeal dated 06/07/2007 filed by the appellant
here in above u/s 65 of
the DLR Act, 1954 against the order dated 28/05/2007 of the SDM/RA
(Najafgarh) issued under section 86A of the DLR Act, 1954. Vide the
said order SDM/RA has ejected the 29 persons from the suit land
bearing Khasra Nos. 29//24/1(1-8), 25/1(1-8), 29/12(3-3), 29/6(4-16),
28/10(4-16). 28/8(4-16), 28/3(4-16), 28/12/1(3-12), 19/16(2-17),
29/17(5-10), 30/25/2(1-9), 34/5/1(3-0), 20/17/2 min(2-0),
20/18(4-10), 20/19(4-16), 29/13(3-8), 20//7(2-13), 21//10(4-12),
28//1(4-16), 1//22(4-16). 28/2(4-16), 29/19(4-16), 32//16/2(3-8),
29/21/1(3-3), 28/9(4-16), 29//11/2(3-2), 1/23(4-16), 28/17(1-7),
28/7(2-16), 27/24/2(0-16), 28/4min(2-19), 29/20(3-12), 28/11/1(3-12)
and 28/13(4-14), the total land measuring 121-15 situated within the
revenue estate of village Daulatpur from whom the appellant had
claimed to have taken the possession of the same. Aggrieved by the
said order appellant has preferred an appeal before this court.
The
parties were heard at length. In the instant matter it is observed
that the impugned order is not challenged by any of the parties
against whom the impugned order was issued. In fact the present
appeal/application is filed by the applicant hereinabove by claiming
to have purchased the said land from the alleged allottees mentioned
as respondents in the impugned order and taken over the possession.
However, the respondent has argued that the said land is a Gaon Sabha
land and as such Govt land and vide the impugned order the Revenue
Assistant has held the possession of the respondents as illegal and
encroachment upon the Govt land and accordingly ejected them u/s 86A.
After
hearing the parties and perusing the material on record I am of the
considered opinion that there is no infirmity in the impugned order
dated 28/05/2007 and there is no doubt that the respondents therein
were encroaching upon the Govt land. Thus there was no right to any
person to transfer or occupy this Govt land. In this regard it is
pertinent to mention that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in
Jagpal
Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab and Ors in Civil Appeal No.
1132/2011
and SLP
(c) No. 3109/2011
that "in
large parts of the country this common village land has been grabbed
by unscrupulous person using muscle power, money power or political
clout, and in many States now there is not an inch of such land left
for the common use of the people of the village, though it may exist
on paper. People with power and pelf operating in villages all over
India systematically encroached upon communal lands_and put them to
uses totally inconsistent with its original character, for personal
aggrandizement at the cost of the village community. This was done
with active connivance of the state authorities and local powerful
vested interests and goondas.”
The Apex
Court took an an extremely adverse view of such illegal encroachments
and directed the authorities "for
eviction of illegal/unauthorized occupants of Gram Sabha/Gram
Panchayat/Poramboke/Shamlat land and these must be restored to the
Gram Sabha /Gram Panchayat for the common Use of villagers of the
village.”
The
present case is a perfect illustration of such abuse of law and
illegal encroachment. Furthermore, the petitioner has continued to
illegally occupy precious and invaluable Govt. land and has adopted
multiple dilatory tactics and frivolous excuses to extend his illegal
occupation and encroachment. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held
in Salem
Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu vs. Union of India (6
SCC 344:AIR 2005 SC 3353)
that costs
shall be imposed in a practical and realistic manner. The purpose of
costs is not only to indemnify the affected party rather also to
create a deterrent effect with respect to frivolous, malafide and
unnecessary suits or proceedings. The Courts shall refrain from
awarding nominal costs, rather real costs and in proper cases even
excessive costs shall be awarded.
Hence
the order:
ORDER
In
view of the observations made in the judgement I am of the opinion
that the appeal of the appellant
hereinabove is devoid any merit. Accordingly the same is dismissed
and the occupants stand ejected u/s 86A of the Delhi Land Reforms
Act, 1954. The
BDO is hereby
directed to take necessary action and evict the illegal occupants
within 2 weeks
and
register FIRs against persons who have the audacity to blatantly
flout the law and encroach and also abet the encroachment of valuable
Govt land.
Further,
this illegal encroachment for a prolonged period and the dilatory
tactics to further prolong it deserves to be heavily penalized and
hence, in view of the aforesaid judgement, I deem it fit to impose an
excessive cost of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- (one crore) on the appellant
hereinabove to be recovered
as arrears of land revenue.
Given
under my hand and seal of this court on
this 30th day of October 2012.
Vikas
Anand, IAS
Dy.
Commissioner &
Collector
Copy
to:
- SDM, Kapashera
- BDO, South West
- Both the parties
No comments:
Post a Comment