Manesar Panchayat Writes to Haryana CM, Opposes Kherki Daula Toll Plaza Shift to Sehrawan

Ipsita Pati | Hindustan Times |  Feb 16, 2018

 

Reacting to the proposal to relocate the Kherki Daula toll plaza to Sehrawan, where the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) requires 65 acres of land for the purpose, the Manesar panchayat on Friday wrote to chief minister Manohar Lal Khattar stating that the proposed land comes under the Punjab Land Preservation Act, 1900, and as such, non-forest activity is prohibited there.

Of the 65 acres, which the NHAI requires for the toll plaza, 59 acres come under the Manesar gram sabha. The members of panchayat are against giving away forest land as the area is part of the Aravalli forests.

“The area is under the ambit of gram panchayats of Manesar, Sehrawan, and Kukrola. The gram sabha of Manesar has passed an amended resolution on November 9, saying it will not hand over the land to the state for shifting the toll plaza. A copy of this resolution was received in the office of deputy commissioner, Gurgaon, on December 8. The state cannot take over the land until and unless it’s released by the gram sabha. This fact is validated and backed by the law — the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961,” stated the letter by Ramavtar Yadav, former head, Manesar panchayat.

Yadav also said they would move to National Green Tribunal over the issue, if the government failed to protect the Aravallis.

The present panchayat head, Poonam Kumari, also submitted a resolution to the CM’s office stating that the government should try to manage the toll plaza at its existing location and it should plan to expand the existing toll plaza by a few more lanes for smooth movement of traffic.

On August 14, last year, Union transport minister Nitin Gadkari had announced shifting of the toll plaza from Kherki Daula for ease of business and better traffic movement between Gurgaon and Manesar.

The forest and wildlife department officials have confirmed that the area in Sehrawan is owned by the panchayats and that, so far, they have not received any application requesting a clearance for the project.

“Sehrawan comes under gair mumkin pahar (non-cultivable area) of the Aravallis and the district administration has to seek permission from the forest department. But, we have not received any application for the same,” Vinod Kumar, conservator of wildlife, South Haryana, said.

The Gurgaon district administration said that it yet to write to the forest department for clearance. When asked about the panchayat’s stand in the issue, Vinay Pratap Singh, the deputy commissioner of Gurgaon, said, “Will examine the letters.”

Source : https://www.hindustantimes.com/gurgaon/manesar-panchayat-writes-to-haryana-cm-opposes-kherki-daula-toll-plaza-shift-to-sehrawan/story-XseePZBwwUc05oVTxlBZzN.html

Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act: Decide on amendment, HC tells Punjab govt

9 Feb, 2018| Sofi Ahsan|The Indian Express

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has granted a final opportunity to the Punjab government to decide on the proposed amendment in the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 and said the court would go ahead with the transfer of pending cases of Gram Panchayat land grabbing in Mohali and Rupnagar districts to the empanelled officers on March 20 if the government decides not to amend the Act.

A division bench of Justices Surya Kant and Shekher Dhawan in the order passed on Tuesday has also given the government four weeks to submit a list of the panel of the officials, who will perform the duties of Collector as well as the Commissioner-and-appellate Authority Act for the disposal of the pending cases. The government has also been asked to submit the list of lawyers who will fight the cases on behalf of the Gram Panchayats.

The officers, whose name have not been submitted by the government despite repeated court orders, are expected to decide the pending cases and give effect to the recommendations of the Special Tribunal headed by former Supreme Court judge Kuldip Singh. The Tribunal had found that thousands of acres of shamlat or public land had been grabbed by various private individuals in Punjab.

Last year, the government had told the High Court that it was considering an amendment to the Village Common Lands Act. There is also a stay on the passing of the final order of the pending disputes before various authorities, who are exercising the quasi-judicial powers under the act, as the High Court had observed that the Gram Panchayats and the residents of the villages will suffer irreparable loss if their cases are adjudicated in absence of any proper and effective assistance.

High Court in February, 2017 had said that, “In case the state government has any serious difficulty in identifying the officers to act as Special Collector or Appellate Authority, there is an equally effective alternate to amend the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 and entrust such disputes to the Civil Courts for adjudication.”

During the hearing of the case on Tuesday, Senior Advocate M L Sarin – who is the Amicus Curiae in the matter, told the division bench that the pendency of the decision regarding the amendment is sending wrong signal to the public and “so many transactions are taking place and people are not even aware about the pending cases (surrounding the land).”

The opposition Aam Aadmi Party in Punjab, also, last month, had sought implementation of the Justice (retd.) Kuldip Singh’s recommendations on the land encroachment and called for action against the people who are accused of grabbing the public land in the areas.

http://indianexpress.com/article/india/village-common-lands-regulation-act-decide-on-amendment-hc-tells-punjab-govt-5056916/

Don’t Take God’s Name to Grab Government Land, says Karnataka High Court

4 Feb,2018 | Yathiraju | The Indian Express

Bengaluru: Observing that most parcels of government land are being misused for the benefit of individuals, the Karnataka High Court has said that God’s name should not be used for grabbing public land.

Justice B Veerappa made this observation in a recent judgment while dismissing a petition filed by Sri Sadguru Saibaba Charitable Trust located in Hulimangala village of Anekal taluk in Bengaluru Urban district. The trust was represented by its president M Rajappa. The trust had allegedly encroached upon land belonging to Hulimangala gram panchayat and constructed a temple and claimed ownership of the land.

While dismissing the trust’s petition of the trust as it had filed a memo seeking withdrawal of the petition, Justice Veerappa said, “The conduct of government authorities and the gram panchayat clearly shows that they are not discharging their institutional responsibility.”

He further said, “That is how much of government land is being misused by unauthorised persons like the petitioner, that too in the name of God... This should be stopped... The name of God should not be brought on record unnecessarily for grabbing land for the benefit of an individual person.”

As per the order, the piece of land in question originally belongs to the state government. On October 3, 2011, the Special Deputy Commissioner transferred the property, bearing Survey No. 156 of Hulimangala village, Jigani hobli, Anekal taluk, measuring 5.7 acres to the gram panchayat for the Ashraya scheme.

Meanwhile, the trust allegedly encroached upon 10 guntas of the land and constructed a temple on 2 guntas and filed a suit claiming ownership of the 10 guntas before the lower courts in Anekal. Both the courts, however, did not pass any temporary injunction on the trust’s application. Therefore, the trust approached the High Court.

After the arguments were heard by the High Court, the counsel for the trust filed a memo seeking withdrawal of the petition.

Source : http://www.newindianexpress.com/states/karnataka/2018/feb/04/dont-take-gods-name-to-grab-government-land-says-karnataka-high-court-1768119.html

Last Stretch of Punjab Forests Threatened as PLPA Cover Expires

Jayashree Nandi | TNN | January 30, 2018 

NEW DELHI: Forests in about 16 villages in the ecologically rich Shivalik foothills around Chandigarh may be left vulnerable to destruction after February 2, 2018. These villages are currently protected under the Punjab Land Preservation Act (PLPA) by way of a notification by the Punjab government dated February 3, 2003 which expires on Feb 2, 2018. The process of re-notifying these areas hasn't started yet.

Even before re-notification is started, the Punjab forest department has started issuing permissions for tree cutting, eco-tourism projects, mixed-use tourism projects, and others in some of the villages (Tarapur, Karoran, Majiran and others) claiming that PLPA will not apply to these villages from February 2. These villages are also recorded as "forests"according to an affidavit submitted by the Punjab government in the TN Godavarman case in SC.

The permission letters given by the forest department on January 22, 2018 accessed by TOI state that these activities can be carried out by those who sought permission after February 2, 2018 once the 2003 notification expires, "no restrictions of the PLPA will be applicable on the expiry of the same (notification) and in compliance of the judgement dated February 2, 2017 in Gram Panchayat Majrian and others Vs union of India passed by the High Court."

The forest department is citing the high court judgement to reason that all areas cannot be considered forests, there are agricultural lands too and the areas cannot be re-notified without a "scientific study." "We are not sure if these areas will be notified again. The high court judgement states that a scientific study should be carried out to indicate the state of soil erosion here. If there is no soil erosion they can be delisted.

After the 2003 notification, any activity can be carried out here. If there is no intermediate regulatory notification what can we do?," asked Harsh Kumar, chief conservator of forests (Hills), Punjab. A special tribunal report constituted by Haryana high court in 2012 headed by Justice Kuldip Singh had also highlighted that these were 'shamlat' common lands there were attempts to change land use by individuals and private parties in many of these villages, some were even illegally privatised.

Environmental experts said if there is no move to re-notify these areas as "forests" immediately, Punjab will lose its little stretch of biodiversity and forests left. "Punjab has the lowest forest cover in the country at 3.52%, it should be trying to protect whatever little it has left. About 95% of that forest cover is located in this region protected by the 2003 notification. These forests protect against soil erosion, act as groundwater recharge sites, a rich wildlife habitat and biodiversity reserves. Beginning with Jammu, to Punjab and up to Uttarakhand it is a contiguous belt which needs to be conserved,"said Chetan Agarwal, an environmental analyst, adding that "Punjab government had shown these villages as recorded forests in the Godavarman case in SC. How can they be removed now?"

Punjab forest department officials said there were no talks of re-notification, some studies of soil erosion status had been carried in a few villages but not all. The permission letters issued by the forest department are also silent on the applicability of the Forest Conservation Act to these forests.

Source: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/law-expires-shivalik-foothills-in-peril/articleshow/62703471.cms

Dalit Group Protests Against Untouchability in a Temple on Common Land

31 January, 2018 | G Jagganath | DNA

As Mahatma Gandhi's death anniversary was observed across the country with an oath against untouchability, members of the Arunthathiyar, a Scheduled Caste community in Sandaiyur village in Madurai district, were staging a fast unto death since Monday seeking removal of an untouchability wall built around a temple by the Paraiyar community, another Dalit group, to deny them access to a land used by both communities.

The dispute was over a wall built around Raja Kaliamman temple which is under the control of Paraiyar community encroaching a poromboke land. The Arunthathiyars alleged that even though the wall did not block any passage, it denies access to the common land and has become a symbol of untouchability.

When the Paraiyars people first attempted to erect a fence around the temple, it was stopped by the Madurai district administration on complaints made by us, said Palanivel belonging to Arunthathiyar community. "Despite our opposition, they constructed a wall around the temple in 2016. As our numerous petitions, the district officials went unheard, we moved the Madras High Court that directed the revenue officials in August 2017 to demolish the wall within four months. But the Court order was not executed till date," he said.

As the fast entered the second day on Tuesday, Madurai district K Veera Raghava Rao met the protesting people at their village, asking them to call off the protest to settle the issue through talks. "We have waited for all these months but no action was taken. So we decide to vacate the village and move to Thenmalaiandy hillock until the government demolishes the wall," Palanivel told DNA.

On January 23, Aruthathiyars threatened to demolish the wall on their own while the Paraiyars gathered to protect it. The district administration pacified the Aruthathiyars assuring that they would demolish the wall by January 29 but they failed to act.

K Jakkaiyan, president of Adi Tamizhar Katchi said that the Arunthathiyar people were wanted the wall to be demolished because of the discriminatory actions of the Paraiyar people. "A child and a woman belonging to Aruthathiyar were beaten up two year ago when they entered the temple. They were also charges of other discrimination against Aruthathiyar as they undertake scavenging work," he said.

Opposing the demand for the demolition of the temple wall, Viduthalai Chiruthaigal Katchi Madurai district secretary Inquilab said that wall was built around the temple for protection as well to keep the environment clean. "The case was filed in the High Court seeking demolition of the temple wall at the instigation of the caste Hindus," he alleged.

A senior official of the district administration said that they could not keep their assurance as Governor and chief minister visited the district during that time. "Since it is a sensitive issue, we have communicated seeking time till February 5," the official said, adding that they did not want to act in hurry considering the issue involves to two communities.

Source : http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-dalit-group-protests-against-untouchability-2579836

Rajasthan High Court: Badri Lal & Ors Vs State of Rajasthan & ors

[SAW-1597/2017] 

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI 

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MAHESHWARI 

Order 16/11/2017 

Instant appeal is directed against order of the ld. Single Judge impugned dt. 20-9-2017.

A joint petition came to be filed by 37 individuals with the grievance that certain recommendations have been made by the Gram Panchayat to convert the pasture land and a circular has also been issued by the State Government on 26-7-2017 and still the District Collector, Dausa has declined to pass the order on the resolution of Gram Panchayat.

So far conversion of pasture land is concerned the Apex Court has come very heavily upon the State Government in permitting conversion of pasture land as observed in the case of Jagpal Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors., AIR 2011 SC 1123 and at least in the light of judgment of the Apex Court ordinarily pasture land cannot be converted even on permission being asked for at the same time if the State Government has granted permission in the given facts & circumstances to any individual for conversion of pasture land if it is not permissible under the relevant statute & brought to the notice of the Court further action can be taken as permissible under the law but discrimination should always be positive and there is no material on record which can strengthen submission of the appellant seeking conversion of pasture land to be acted upon by the District Collector as a matter of course or decision taken by the District Collector is in violation of relevant provisions of Rajasthan Land Revenue Act.

The Ld. Single Judge also considered the request and was (3 of 3) [SAW-1597/2017] not inclined to grant permission for conversion or set apart the pasture land as being prayed for the writ petitioners keeping in view judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Jagpal Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors. and observed that if proposal of the Gram Panchayat has not been accepted by the District Collector there appears no illegality which may call for interference.

Counsel for appellant submits that notices have been issued to the individuals by Tehsildar, Lalsot, District Dausa treating them to be encroacher over the subject land in question which has been allotted to them by the competent authority after being displaced from the flood affected areas.

As regards the notices which have been served upon the individuals from the office of Tehsildar, Lalsot, District Dausa are concerned, they are certainly at liberty to submit their reply & justify their status over the subject land in question but as regards the prayer which has been made in the writ petition for conversion of the pasture land, as a matter of right cannot be accepted by this Court and after hearing counsel for the appellant we find no error being committed by the Ld. Single Judge in passing the order impugned which may call for interference.

Consequently, the appeal is without substance and accordingly dismissed.

   

                    (DEEPAK MAHESHWARI),J.                                                         (AJAY RASTOGI),J. 

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/104007096/

Prem Singh vs State of U.P and Others

Chief Justice's Court

Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 63380 of 2012

Petitioner :- Prem Singh
Respondent :- The State Of U.P. And Others
Petitioner Counsel :- Arvind Upadhyay
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.

Hon'ble Shiva Kirti Singh,Acting Chief Justice
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel,J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State-respondents.
Simple prayer made in the this public interest litigation is to direct respondents no. 1 to 3, i.e. Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, U.P., Lucknow, Collector/District Magistrate, Azamgarh and Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Sadar, district Azamgarh to constitute a Committee headed by the District Magistrate, Azamgarh for inquiring into illegal encroachments and illegal occupation of respondents no. 5 to 10 over plot no. 304, which is claimed to be a public pond, situated in Village Telhua Chakwalli, Pargana Chiraiyakot, Tehsil Sadar, District Azamgarh and to get the land vacated from such illegal encroachments.

After the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Jagpal Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and others, reported in AIR 2011 SC 1123 followed by some other judgments, upon directions of this Court, 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:-


We 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.

In view of direction noticed in the aforesaid circular, we are 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.

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.

So far as the present writ petition is concerned, we grant liberty to the petitioner to approach respondents no. 2 and 3 again with a certified copy of this order. The concerned respondents shall get appropriate inquiry made and take required action to protect public ponds as per law laid down by the Apex Court, expeditiously.

Let a copy of this order be furnished to the learned Standing Counsel for the State for communication 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.

The petition is, accordingly, disposed of.
Order Date :- 6.12.2012
RK


http://elegalix.allahabadhighcourt.in/elegalix/WebShowJudgment.do