No eco clearance for Nitesh's apartment project on 'lake land'

Bosky Khanna|Deccan Herald|Bengaluru, 26 October, 2017


The State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) has rejected the application of Nitesh Urban Development Pvt Ltd for environmental clearance to its residential apartment project at Bhoganahalli village in Bengaluru South taluk.

The developer wants to construct apartments in two parcels of land on a total plot area of 44,880.93 square metres. The SEIAA’s rejection came on October 12.

“We refused the environmental clearance because the land where the project has been proposed is lake land. Bengaluru has been witnessing flash floods lately. If such projects are cleared, the chances of flooding will only rise,” Ramachandra, member secretary, SEIAA, told DH.

According to the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change, environmental clearance is mandatory for any large housing and infrastructure project. 

The developer wants to construct apartments with lower and upper basements, a ground floor and 13 floors and a stair headroom with 297 units each in two parcels of land in survey numbers 22, 23/1, 23/2, 24, 25/2, 26/1f, 26/2, 27, 28, 29/1, 29/2, 29/3 and 29/4 at Bhoganahalli.

At the meeting, SEIAA members also noted that the proposed site is in a low-lying area that would be prone to inundation. Therefore, the construction of such a large residential complex will be unsuitable, they stressed. 

The minutes of the meeting, a copy of which has been seen by DH, mention that the State Level Expert Appraisal Committee (SEAC), too, had taken note of the ambiguity regarding the Bhoganahalli waterbody in Survey No 29 at its meeting on February 27, 2017.

The SEIAA noted that section 14 (2) of the Karnataka Lake Conservation and Development Authority (KLCDA) Act, 2014, bans construction on any lakebed. Both the SEIAA and the SEAC feared the construction would affect the buffer area as the company’s proposal does not show any other approach road to the project site.

The SEIAA also stated that the land belongs to the gram panchayat and as per the Supreme Court orders of January 28, 2011, in civil appeal number 1132/2011, the land should be restored to the panchayat for the common use of villagers (locals). 

On February 23 this year, the SEIAA had refused to give environmental clearance to 28 developers/companies that had been seeking it since 2014. Among the companies were Mantri Techzone Private Limited and Coremind Software and Services Private Limited.


http://www.deccanherald.com/content/639433/no-eco-clearance-niteshs-apartment.html

Ensure Redressal of Pending Cases in 3 Months, Staff Told

Tribune News Service | Mohali|  October 15, 2017

While tightening noose around those possessing panchayati lands illegally, the Secretary of Rural Development and Panchayat Department directed the staff to ensure the redressal of all pending cases within three months under the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act and Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961.

Issuing directions, Anurag Verma, Secretary of the department, said the warrant to possession should be issued after following the proper procedure as per law within one month of issuing the eviction notice and then possession should be taken within one month after coordinating with the Revenue Department.

Verma said checking at offices of District Development and Panchayat officers would be conducted after November 15 and if any kind of dereliction would be noticed for non-issuance of warrant to possession as per above said timeline, then the District Development and Panchayat Officer and Block Development and Panchayat Officer concerned would be held responsible.

“Checking regarding cases found pending beyond December 15 and regarding implementation of the possession notice would be carried out and if any case found pending beyond three months or if found that the implementation of the possession notice is pending beyond the prescribed timeline, then the officer concerned would be held responsible,” the Secretary said.

Verma said while conducting an inquiry of the Gram Panchayat, Teeda Block, Majri District, it was noticed that the officials concerned took over five years to resolve a pending case under Section 7 of the Act. Besides, it was also noticed that the eviction notice was issued by the District Development and Panchayat Officer, Mohali, on June 6 last year but even after a lapse of 18 months, possession was not taken by issuing warrant to possession.

He said during the checking of the District Development and Panchayat Office, Kapurthala, it was found that an eviction notice was issued for a 1790-acre land of which warrant to possession was issued only for 446 acres and actual possession was taken for only 80 acres.

OFFICIAL SPEAK

Issuing directions, Anurag Verma, Secretary of the Rural Development and Panchayat Department, said the warrant to possession should be issued after following the proper procedure as per law within one month of issuing the eviction notice and then possession should be taken within one month after coordinating with the Revenue Department.

Source : http://www.tribuneindia.com/news/chandigarh/ensure-redressal-of-pending-cases-in-3-months-staff-told/482931.html

Villagers in India's Rajasthan Reclaim Common Land with Maps, Petitions

Rina Chandran | Thomas Reuters Foundation | 10 October, 2017 |Hastinapur, Rajasthan 

It took residents of Hastinapur village in the Indian state of Rajasthan three years of poring over maps, demarcating boundaries, and numerous petitions and visits to local officials to regain control of their traditional common land.

But the wait - and the effort - were worth it, they say.

The 35 hectares (87 acres) of land now registered to the community have changed the lives of the 50 families because they are now able to safely graze their cattle, meet most of their need of fodder and firewood, and supplement their incomes.

The lush green grounds teeming with native trees and scrub were once arid, encroached by a neighbouring village. They are testament to the success the state has had with restoring the commons even as industrial demand for land rises.

“Before we got back the land, the women had to walk some distance to graze the cattle, cut firewood, and we had to buy additional fodder,” Gopal Jat, a village elder, said as he sat in the shade of a leafy jamun tree.

“Now we can graze our cattle without worries, the women and children need not go anywhere else for fodder or firewood, and we earn some money from selling produce. It took time, but this is our land now, no one can take it from us,” he said.

Commons make up more than a third of India’s total land area. They include grazing grounds, some forest land, ponds, rivers and other areas that all members of a rural community can access and use.

They provide food, water, fodder, firewood and livelihoods to rural communities, particularly the poor, while also helping recharge groundwater and maintain the land’s ecological balance.

As the population grew and demand for land rose, commons were taken over for industrial and development projects, including roads, mines, power plants and homes.

“Access to the commons and its resources has long been a customary right of rural communities,” said Shantanu Sinha Roy, a manager at advocacy Foundation for Ecological Security (FES) which helped Hastinapur regain control of its commons.

“But that right has been increasingly denied. When communities regain control, their livelihoods improve, and the land regains its original character, with the soil and water conserved,” he told the Thomson Reuters Foundation.

INSECURE RIGHTS

The majority of land conflicts in India are related to common land, according to a study by the Tata Institute of Social Sciences.

Common land in India has deteriorated by about half over the last five decades because of encroachments, insecure tenure rights for local communities and a lack of trust in communities in managing them, according to data from FES.

Many were classified as “wastelands” or government land and diverted for quarrying, biofuel cultivation, mines and other commercial purposes, displacing and depriving local communities.

About half the country’s rural households rely on forests and common land for their livelihood activities, and the loss of commons has hurt farmers, weavers and potters, and triggered migration to the cities for jobs.

The 2006 Forest Rights Act and an older law to protect land of indigenous people recognised their and forest dwellers customary rights to forest land and commons.

Environmentalists - and even musicians - are appealing for the protection of common land to safeguard livelihoods and protect against climate-change impacts.

But states can deny these rights, or change the classification of commons and take them over, particularly in resource-rich areas it deems critical for development.

“States do not distinguish between common land and other lands, and rarely respect customary usage or communities’ claims over common lands,” said Shankar Gopalakrishnan at rights group Campaign for Survival and Dignity.

“When these lands are taken, the effects include pollution, damage to the water table and changes in the ecosystem that result in loss of livelihoods with no compensation,” he said.

“SPECIAL” CONDITIONS

The Supreme Court in 2011 recognised the importance of commons to rural economies, and ordered states to remove encroachments and hand over management to village councils.

Rajasthan, where commons make up 40 percent of total land area, was the first state to draft a policy for commons.

The western Indian state called for the demarcation of commons, management by the community, engaging the help of research firms and non-profits, ensuring sustainability, and ending privatisation except in “very special and exceptional” conditions.

As of 2015, about 340,000 acres of commons were managed by 1.5 million people in Rajasthan, according to FES, which is using satellite imagery to map the commons in three states.

In villages that have regained their commons, distress migration has been stemmed, water tables have risen and no new mining projects have been announced, Roy said. .

But progress elsewhere has been limited.

“The Supreme Court judgment didn’t significantly change the situation on the ground, as states shifted the onus for implementation to communities and non profits,” said Kanchi Kohli at think tank Centre for Policy Research in Delhi.

“Commons are less of a concern for the state than other land-related issues. Within communities too, management can be complicated by caste politics and social hierarchy,” she said.

In Hastinapur and in Barundani, about 35 km (22 miles) away though, the families all come together not just to use the commons, but also to care for them and guard the land from encroachers, said Roy.

The fight for the commons has also empowered women in one of the most traditional parts of the country where women cover their heads, and normally do not speak in front of men.

“When access to water and firewood was limited, women bore the brunt of it. They were also not consulted on matters in the village,” said Roy.

“Now, they sit in on meetings, they are part of the decision making on the commons and other matters. The economic value of the commons is important, but there are also social and ecological aspects that are equally important,” he said. 

(Reporting by Rina Chandran @rinachandran, Editing by Astrid Zweynert. Please credit the Thomson Reuters Foundation, the charitable arm of Thomson Reuters, that covers humanitarian news, women’s rights, trafficking, property rights, climate change and resilience. Visit news.trust.org to see more stories.)

Source : https://uk.reuters.com/article/india-landrights/feature-villagers-in-indias-rajasthan-reclaim-common-land-with-maps-petitions-idUKL8N1M70SJ

Failure to Retrieving State Land: HC Directs DC Shopian’s Personal Appearance

MAROUF ALI | Kashmir Observer | Srinagar | OCTOBER 8, 2017

The apex court (in the Jagpal Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others, 2011) has laid down that illegalities committed in nature of usurpation of common lands of the village communities cannot be regularized and the common interest of the villagers cannot be made to suffer merely because the unauthorized occupation has subsisted for many years.

Srinagar—The Jammu and Kashmir High Court has directed personal appearance of Deputy Commissioner Shopian on November 9 for failure to retrieve ‘Kahcharai’ (pasture land) and other state land from the encroachers in the south Kashmir district.

The directions were passed by the court while hearing a plea with one Ghulam Hassan Mir alleging violation of judgment passed by the court on May last year. The court has directed authorities to ensure retrieving of ‘Kahcharai’ and other state land from the encroachers in general and from the three private persons—Bashir Ahmad Mir, Shakeel Ahmad Mir and Ghulam Nabi Mir in particular, with reference to implementation of judgment passed by apex court.

The apex court (in the Jagpal Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others, 2011) has laid down that illegalities committed in nature of usurpation of common lands of the village communities cannot be regularized and the common interest of the villagers cannot be made to suffer merely because the unauthorized occupation has subsisted for many years.

It had directed the Chief Secretaries of all the States to formulate the schemes for eviction of illegal and unauthorized occupants of Gram Sabha, Gram Panchayat, Shamilat Land for the common use of villagers.

The high court had also directed that out of the land in question an area of 10 marlas, shall be subject to the decision that shall be taken by the authorities on an application pending for such consideration and if the exchange offered was not found feasible, then the land shall also be retrieved.

Upon notice Deputy Commissioner Shopian, filed the statement of facts and has averred that anti- encroachment drive in villages Turkawangam, Maldaira of Tehsil Choitragam had been under taken and 5 kanals and 1.5 marlas from the private persons and land measuring 22 kanal and 16 marlas grabbed by the petitioner, Ghulam Hassan Mir.

It is stated in the reply that for retrieving the state land, a committee of officers has been constituted which is headed by SDM Zainapora.

It is however, not disclosed in the statement of facts that as to what steps the committee has taken to ensure retrieval of stat land. When asked AAG submitted that the committee could not show any positive result as there was unrest in the Valley for seven months in the year 2016.

He could not, however, justify the inaction of committee from November, 2016 onwards.

“In the above background Deputy Commissioner Shopian, shall appear in person and explain as to why he has not implement the judgment,” the court said. The Officer shall also file compliance by or before the next date on November 9, the court added. 

Source : https://kashmirobserver.net/2017/local-news/failure-retrieving-state-land-hc-directs-dc-shopians-personal-appearance-24080

Allahabad High Court--Yogesh Kumar vs State of U.P & 8 others

Court No. - 6 

Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 42202 of 2017 

Petitioner :- Yogesh Kumar 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & 8 Others 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Vinod Kumar Singh,Chandra Bhan Gupta 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Diwakar Singh 

Hon'ble B. Amit Sthalekar,J. 

Heard Sri Chandra Bhan Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Diwakar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no.4 and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents no.1 to 3. 

In view of the nature of the order sought to be passed it is not necessary to issue any notice to the respondents no.5 to 9.

This Public Interest Litigation Petition has been filed for a direction to the respondent no.2 to remove illegal encroachment alleged to have been made by the respondents no.5 to 9 over the Araji No.482, area 0.3310 hectare situated in Village Sarain Jodh Rai, Pargana Sikandera, Tehsil Phoolpur, District Allahabad. It is stated that the said Araji is shown in the revenue records as Pond, copy of which has been filed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. 

Reliance has been placed on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Public Interest Litigation Petition No.63380 of 2012 (Prem Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others) wherein the Division Bench has directed that if the complaints regarding unauthorised 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 the law already settled by the Supreme Court in the case of Jagpal Singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab and Others reported in (2011) 11 SCC 396. Paragraphs 13, 15, 16, 18, 23 and 24 of Jagpal Singh (supra) read as under: 

"13. We find no merit in this appeal. The appellants herein were trespassers who illegally encroached on to the Gram Panchayat land by using muscle power/money power and in collusion with the officials and even with the Gram Panchayat. We are of the opinion that such kind of blatant illegalities must not be condoned. Even if the appellants have built houses on the land in question they must be ordered to remove their constructions, and possession of the land in question must be handed back to the Gram Panchayat. Regularizing such illegalities must not be permitted because it is Gram Sabha land which must be kept for the common use of villagers of the village. 

15. In M.I. Builders (P) Ltd. vs. Radhey Shyam Sahu, 1999(6) SCC 464 the Supreme Court ordered restoration of a park after demolition of a shopping complex constructed at the cost of over Rs.100 crores. 

16. In Friends Colony Development Committee vs. State of Orissa, 2004 (8) SCC 733 this Court held that even where the law permits compounding of unsanctioned constructions, such compounding should only be by way of an exception. In our opinion this decision will apply with even greater force in cases of encroachment of village common land. Ordinarily, compounding in such cases should only be allowed where the land has been leased to landless labourers or members of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes, or the land is actually being used for a public purpose of the village e.g. running a school for the villagers, or a dispensary for them.

18. The present is a case of land recorded as a village pond. This Court in Hinch Lal Tiwari vs. Kamala Devi, AIR 2001 SC 3215 (followed by the Madras High Court in L. Krishnan vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 2005(4) CTC 1 Madras) held that land recorded as a pond must not be allowed to be allotted to anybody for construction of a house or any allied purpose. The Court ordered the respondents to vacate the land they had illegally occupied, after taking away the material of the house. We pass a similar order in this case.

23. 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.

24. Let a copy of this order be sent to all Chief Secretaries of all States and Union Territories in India who will ensure strict and prompt compliance of this order and submit compliance reports to this Court from time to time." 

No useful purpose would be served by keeping this writ petition pending.

The writ petition is disposed of with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties with a direction to the respondent no.3, Sub Divisional Magistrate, Phoolpur, District Allahabad to enquire into the matter and pass appropriate orders keeping in mind the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Jagpal Singh (supra) as well as the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court passed in Public Interest Litigation Petition No.63380 of 2012 (Prem Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others) within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is received in his office. 

It is made clear that the Court has not adjudicated the claim of the petitioner on merit. 

Order Date :- 12.9.2017 

N Tiwari

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Deputy Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD 
http://elegalix.allahabadhighcourt.in/elegalix/WebShowJudgment.do?judgmentID=5737493

News Clipping: Investigate whether grazing land has been encroached on, says HC [05.10.2017]

DNA Correspondent| October 5, 2017

The Gujarat High Court’s first division bench of Chief Justice R Subhash Reddy and justice Vipul Pancholi has instructed the assistant government pleader on Wednesday to take instructions from the Surendranagar district collector on whether the allegations of the encroachment of grazing land for last 10 years has any substance.

It was hearing a petition of agriculturists from Surendranagar district who approached the high court with a prayer to get around 200 acre of Gauchar (grazing) land free from encroachment by politically and financially powerful persons.

After hearing the primary submission over the PIL moved by Zala Digvijaysinh and others from Raisangpur village through advocate SM Chudasama and Bhunesh Rupera, the court also noted that if the collector finds the allegation of encroachment to be true, whether the administration has any plan to get the land evacuated. Further hearing on the matter has been kept for October 11.

The petition alleged that around 30 politically and financially powerful persons of the village have encroached 200-acre gauchar land, earmarked by the government for 3,120 livestock in the village, for last 10 years. Though the petitioner and other villagers had raised the issue with Taluka Development Officer (TDO) and the district collector to remove the encroachment, no concrete action has been taken to free the land from encroachment.

It was further alleged that though the TDO and the district collector had issued notices to the village talati and sarpanch in 2015 to remove encroachment, no action has been taken till date.

The plea

The petition alleged that around 30 politically and financially powerful people in the village have encroached the 200-acre gauchar land, earmarked by the government for 3,120 livestock in the village for the last 10 years.

http://www.dnaindia.com/ahmedabad/report-investigate-whether-grazing-land-has-been-encroached-on-says-hc-2550500