K.C. Gopakumar
KOCHI , JULY 06, 2017 19:13 IST
To take on encroachments on government land
Emphasising the need to have political will on the part the government to take action against encroachments on government land, the Kerala High Court has asked whether it is “too much for the citizenry to expect the government, which came to power with the simple pledge that every thing will be set right, to act positively and effectively.”
The court, upholding the proceedings initiated by revenue authorities to take over a private resort and its 22 cents of land, observed: “What is required is the political will to proceed and official vigour to implement. If either is dampened then it is the public interest that is compromised.”
The court said there was no dearth of legal precedents of the Supreme Court and the High Court to “trigger the government into action to take back what is due to the people and to put it to public benefit. The legislature too has brought in enactments to proceed for such recovery.”
The court further pointed out that in Jagpal Singh and others vs State of Punjab and others case, the Supreme Court had deprecated the large-scale encroachments by unscrupulous land grabbers using muscle, money and political clout. In fact, the Supreme Court had directed all the State governments to prepare schemes for eviction of illegal/ unauthorised occupants of government land or lands vested with local authorities.
The court observed that the Supreme Court directives were relevant for all times and the lethargy of the authorities could not confer new right on encroachers. There was no requirement for a special scheme in the State since the Land Conservancy Act granted the authorities constituted thereunder to proceed for the recovery of what belonged to the State. It was “trite law” that public interest was paramount and even in the case of privately held lands, deprivation of property was possible, subject to the holder being amply compensated and the State resorting to acquisition.
When the petition by V.V. George, owner of the resort, against the eviction proceedings came up for hearing, Additional Advocate General Ranjith Thampan argued that the resort was constructed on government land. The land was given to one Thomas Michael for temporary occupation for non-agricultural purposes on payment of rent. He had then transferred the land to Mr. George violating the lease condition that the land shall not be transferred for three year. The petitioner was a rank “trespasser.”
No comments:
Post a Comment