HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Court No. - 10
Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 1752 of 2020
Petitioner :- Ashok Mishra And Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 12 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Krishna Chandra Pandey
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Azad Rai
Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.
1. Today the Advocates are abstaining from work. I have perused the record.
2. The petitioner has preferred the present Public Interest Litigation inter-alia with the prayer to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to remove the encroachment made by respondent no.5 to 11 over the arazi no.678 area 0.0050 hectare recorded as Pathaway/rasta and arazi no.676 area 0.0160 hectare recorded as drain/Nali as well as to remove the encroachment made by respondent no.12 and 13 over arazi no.601 area 0.0380 hectare recorded as drain/nali, which are situated at Village - Dhansiriya, Pargana Bhagwat, Tehsil-Madihan, District-Mirzapur, after due demarcation and measurements and also to take suitable action against the alleged encroachers and to restore the nature and status of the aforesaid lands in question as earlier within stipulated period as fixed by this Hon'ble Court.
3. The notices were accepted by the Standing Counsel on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3 and notice on behalf of respondent No.4/Gram Sabha has been accepted by Sri Azad Rai, Advocate.
4. It appears from perusal of the record that the petitioner has preferred the present PIL stating therein that the arazi no.678 area 0.0050 hectare and over the arazi no.676 area 0.0160 hectare and over the arazi no.601 area 0.0380 hectare, which were recorded as drain/nali, were encroached by the private respondents. Since no action was taken, again representations were made by him from time to time. Since no action was taken, the petitioner compelled to file the present PIL.
5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jagpal Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and others reported in AIR 2011 SC 1132 held that the illegal encroachment on the Gram Panchayats' land by use of muscle power, money power and in collusion with the officials of the State and even with the help of the Gram Pradhan, such kind of blatant illegalities cannot be condoned. Even if the house has already been build on the land illegally, they must be ordered to remove their constructions. Further directions were given by the Apex Court in the aforesaid case to all the State Governments/Union Territories of the country that they should prepare scheme 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 Chief Secretaries of all State Governments/Union Territories in India were directed to do the needful, taking the help of other senior officers of the Governments. Paragraph 22 of the aforesaid judgement is quoted below:-
"22. Before parting with this case we give directions to all the State Governments in the country that they should prepare schemes 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. For this purpose the Chief Secretaries of all State Governments/Union Territories in India are directed to do the needful, taking the help of other senior officers of the Governments. The said scheme should provide for the speedy eviction of such illegal occupant, after giving him a show cause notice and a brief hearing. Long duration of such illegal occupation or huge expenditure in making constructions thereon or political connections must not be treated as a justification for condoning this illegal act or for regularizing the illegal possession. Regularization should only be permitted in exceptional cases e.g. where lease has been granted under some Government notification to landless labourers or members of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes, or where there is already a school, dispensary or other public utility on the land."
6. After the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jagpal Singh and others (supra), the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Board of Revenue, U.P. Lucknow has issued a circular dated 4th October, 2012. Para-1 of that circular simply refers to certain directions of this Court in a writ petition bearing number 6472 (M/B) of 2012 (Om Prakash Verma & Others vs. State of U.P. and others) and judgements of the Apex Court including that in the case of Jagpal Singh's case (supra), but Para-2 is relevant for the purpose. The same runs as hereunder:-
"bl lEcU/k esa eq>sa ;g dgus dk funs'k gqvk gS] fd xzke lHkkvksa dh Hkwfe ij rkykc@iks[kj@pkjkxkg ,oa dfczLrku ij voS/k dCtk@ vfrdze.k dks gVokus ds lEcU/k esa izeq[k lfpo] jktLo foHkkx] mRrj izns'k 'kklu dh v/;{krk esa cgqlnL;h; lfefr dk xBu fd;k x;k gS ¼Nk;k izfr layXu½A vr% vuqjks/k gS fd mDr xfBr lfefr dk izpkj izlkj vius {ks+= ds nSfud lekpkj i=ksa@dscy pSuyksa ij fu;fer vk/kkj ij djkuk lqfuf'pr djsa] rFkk vius vius e.My @ tuin ds leLr xzke lHkkvksa ds lnL;ksa ls voS/k dCtk @ vfrdze.k dh f'kdk;rsa izkIr dj le;c) :i ls tkWp dh dk;Zokgh lqfuf'pr dj d`r dk;Zokgh dh izxfr ls vius e.Myk;qDr ds ek/;e ls ifj"kn dks ikf{kd :i ls miyC/k djkuk lqfuf'pr djsa "
7. In the case of Prem Singh Vs. The State Of U.P. And Others (PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 63380 of 2012) after taking into consideration the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jagpal Singh and others (supra), directions were given by this Court to the Principal Secretary, Revenue, Government of Uttar Pradesh, to communicate a copy of the order passed in the PIL No.63380 of 2012 to all the Divisional Commissioners as well as the District Magistrates. The aforesaid order was passed in the PIL on 06.12.2012. It appears that the aforesaid order has not been complied with in its letter and spirit. Even today large number of PILs are coming before this Court every today in spite of the fact that the representations were made to the concerned competent authorities as per law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jagpal Singh and others (supra) as well as in terms of the circular issued on 4th October, 2012 by the State Government, no action has been taken by the authorities. Matter indeed very serious.
8. I have noticed that large number of similar writ petitions are being filed only for enforcement of law laid down in the case of Jagpal Singh (supra) and some subsequent judgements.
9. In view of direction noticed in the aforesaid circular, I am of the considered view that if complaints regarding unauthorized occupation over the public ponds or other similar public lands are received by the District Magistrate of a District, he should take all the required actions in view of law already settled in the case of Jagpal Singh and others (supra).
10. In case, the District Magistrate finds some good reasons to seek guidance from the Members Committee indicated in Para-2 of the aforesaid circular, then he may refer the matter and seek guidance in appropriate cases.
11. So far as the present PIL is concerned, a liberty is granted to the petitioner to approach the District Magistrate Ballia as well as Sub Divisional Magistrate concerned along with a copy of this order. The aforesaid respondents shall get appropriate inquiry made and take required action to protect land in question from the illegal encroachments as per law laid down by the Apex Court, expeditiously but after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned.
12. In the special facts and circumstances of the case, the Register General is directed to communicate a copy of this order to the Principal Secretary, Revenue, Government of Uttar Pradesh, who shall circulate a copy of this order to all the Divisional Commissioners as well as the District Magistrates so that number of such types of cases coming to this Court may be checked.
13. The petition is, accordingly, disposed of.
No comments:
Post a Comment