- SDM, Kapashera
- BDO, South West
- Both the parties
Thursday, December 27, 2012
In Other Courts, New Delhi: Angoori Devi v/s Gaon Sabha Daulatpur & Ors....30th October 2012
Appeal No. 102/07
Angoori Devi v/s Gaon Sabha Daulatpur & Ors.
IN THE COURT OF DY. COMMISSIONER & COLLECTOR
Angoori Devi ............................ Appellant
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:
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