VINOD PRAKASH CHATRUVEDI V. PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT AND ORS.

Allahabad High Court 

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 48859 of 2007 

(1 Apr, 2011)

Prakash Krishna, J.;-

1. Arazi No.8 area 200 hectare situate in Village Makdumpur District Mau is the subject matter of the present writ petition. The said plot was earmarked as pasture land in the revenue record.

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents have unauthorizedly allotted the said plot to the contesting respondent no. 6 Smt.Dulari W/o Shanker.

3. An application for cancellation of allotment of the aforesaid plot in favour of Smt. Dulari was filed by certain persons including the petitioner before the Upper Collector, Mau.

4. The application was filed on the ground that the petitioner is a poor Harizan Agricultural Labourer. The land in question being pasture land which is public utility land, could not have been allotted to the contesting respondent. It was further stated that the Revenue Inspector intentionally submitted a false report dated 2.5.1996 by changing the land use of the said plot. The lease was given to the contesting respondent without there being any public notice etc. in a clandestine manner. The application has been dismissed by the order dated 23.10.2004 on the ground that lease was granted in the year 1996 and the application for its cancellation was filed in the year 2001 I.e beyond three years; the period prescribed for filing an application for cancellation of a lease, by an aggrieved person. The matter was carried in revision No.348/426/B of 2004 before the Additional Commissioner(1st) Azamgarh Division, Azamgarh who by his order dated 19.10.2006 confirmed the order and the said revision was dismissed.

5. Challenging the aforesaid two orders, the present writ petition has been filed. Heard Shri Arun Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel on behalf of the respondents no. 1 to 4. Notices were issued to respondent no.6 but her counsel Shri D.B.Yadav and Shri R.D.Yadav, Advocates are not present even in the revised list.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the land in question being a pastureland cannot be subject matter of allotment to anybody. He further submits that the procedure prescribed for allotment was not followed. The said plot has been allotted to the respondent no. 6 in a fraudulent manner without there being any public notice. The respondent no. 6 is not a landless agricultural labourer. Her husband has already got three bighas of land besides two medical shops and gun license. The learned standing counsel on the other hand supports the impugned orders.

7. The only question that arises for consideration in the present petition is whether the authorities below were justified in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner for cancellation of the allotment in favour of the contesting private respondent on the plea that the same is barred by time.

8. Along with the writ petition, a copy of Khatauni has been filed which shows that in pursuance of the order of Sub Divisional Officer, Ghosi and the resolution dated 25.2.1996 approved on 30.12.1996, the user of the plot no.8 was changed from pastureland and the name of respondent no. 6 was recorded as Bhumidari with non transferable rights. The above document clearly shows that the respondents have allotted a public utility land in favour of the respondent no.6.

9. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it was a public utility land and therefore, it could not have been allotted. Reliance has been placed upon a judgment of this Court in Atar Singh versus State of U.P and others 2010 (109) RD 156, wherein it has been held that a land recorded as Charagah cannot be allotted in favour of any person.

10. There are mainly two objects of pasture land or grazing land:

Firstly, it provides rights to the villagers to graze their cattle, free of cost, and without any money.

Secondly, pasture land is a part of our ecology and helps a lot in maintaining our ecological balance by providing domestic animals of the tribes, their natural environmental and natural home and natural environmental and natural vegetation, where they eat food (grass), drink water, get pure air, sunlight, rest, move and enjoy freedom, freedom from the shackles of farm house, freedom from the fetters of rope and freedom from every iron bar. Otherwise, it would be a perpetration of cruelty, torture, exploitation and degrading treatment of domestic animals unbalancing our ecological system.

11. The fact is that a large chunk of land measuring 200 hectares has been allotted to the respondent no. 6 without following the prescribed procedure under section 198 of U.P.Z.A & L.R Act.

12. Section 197 of U.P.Z.A & L.R Act 1950 empowers the Land Management Committee with the previous approval of the Assistant Collector incharge of the Sub Division to admit any person as Bhumidhar with non transferable rights to any land to a vacant land, landvested in the Land Management Committee. This section also refers Section 132.

"Section 132 provides that notwithstanding anything contained in Section 131 Bhumidhari rights shall not accrue in pasture lands or lands covered by water........................................".

13. The scheme of the Act suggest preservation of pasture land. This is one aspect of the case. There appears to be no provision to convert a pasture land at the whims of an authority into a vacant land and open such converted land for allotment under section 197 of the Act.

14. A complete procedure for allotment of vacant land vested in the Land Management Committee under section 194 or any other provision of the Act has been provided therein. Section 198 is in the nature of self code. It lays down the order of preferences in admitting persons to land as Bhumidar with non transferable right. Its sub section (3) provides that the land that may be allotted under sub section (1) shall not exceed.

(i)in the case of a person falling under Clause (C) such areas together with the land held by him as bhumidar or asami immediately before the allotment would aggregate to 1.26 hectares (3.125 acres):

(ii) in any other case, an area of 1.26 hectare (3.125 acres)

15. Procedure for cancellation of allotment has also been provided therein. In any case in view of sub section (3) of section 198 an area more than 1.26 hectares cannot be allotted to a person.

16. In the case on hand therefore, allotment of 200 hectares of land to the contesting private respondent on the face of it is illegal, void and beyond the statutory provisions.

17. There is another flaw in the impugned orders. The impugned orders would show that the resolution of Gaon Sabha for allotment of the land in dispute is dated 25.2.1996 which was approved on 30.12.1996. No such resolution could have been passed on 25.2.1996 or approved on 30.12.1996, as on these dates the land continued to be recorded in revenue record as "charagah' i.e 'pasture land'. The entry of pasture land was struck off by the order dated 2.1.1997. Thus, on the date of proposal or its acceptance, it was not a vacant land open for allotment.

18. The authorities below have also failed to consider the plea that the allottee is not a landless agricultural labourer. Her husband is a rich person and possesses three bighas of land and two medical stores. The said averment made in para 9 of the writ petition, in the above of any denial, is liable to be accepted as correct.

19. It is apt to consider the judgment of the Apex Court in Jagpal Singh & others versus State of Punjab & Others JT 2011 (1) SC 617. This was a case with respect of a Village Pond. In that connection, the Apex Court has made certain observations which are relevant for the present purposes. The Apex Court has deprecated the action of the State Authorities either in allotting the public utility land in favour of a person or in permitting an encroacher to occupy such public utility land. It has relied upon its earlier decisionM.I.Builders (P) Ltd. Versus Radhey Shyam Sahu JT 1999(5) SC 42: where the Supreme Court ordered restoration of a park after demolition of a shopping complex constructed at the cost of over Rs.100 crores. It has been observed that the principle laid down in the said decision of M.I.Builders (P) Ltd. Versus Radhey Shyam Sahu JT1999(5) SC 42: will apply with even greater force in cases of encroachment of village common land. In para 15 of the report, the settlement of such Gaon Sabha land to private persons and commercial enterprises on payment of some money has not been approved and it has been provided that even if there is general order in favour of such settlement, the same should be ignored.

20. In the case of Hinch Lal Tewari versus Kamala Devi JT 2001 (6) SC 88 and others the Apex Court has observed thus:

"13. It is important to note that material resources of the community like forests, tanks, ponds, hillock, mountain et.c are nature's bounty. They maintain delicate ecological balance. They need to be protected for a proper and healthy environment which enable people to enjoy a quality life which is essence of the guaranteed right under Article 21 of the constitution. The Government, including revenue authorities, i.e respondents 11 to 13, having noticed that a pond is falling in disuse, should have bestowed their attention to develop the same which would, on one hand, have prevented ecological disaster and on the other provided better environment for the benefit of public at large. Such vigil is the best protection against knavish attempts to seek allotment in non-abadi sites. '

21. The ratio of the aforesaid decisions is that a public utility land should be preserved as such and under no circumstances it should be allotted or leased out to any person. Any action on behalf of the state authorities contrary to above, is illegal and is liable to be ignored.

22. In the case of Jagpal Singh & Others (Supra), the following observation in respect of illegal allotment of such lands has been made:

"The time has now come to review all these orders by which the common village land has been grabbed by such fraudulent practices."

23. Not only this, general directions have been issued to all State Governments directing them to prepare schemes for eviction of illegal/unauthorized occupants of Gram Sabha/Gram Panchayat/Poramboke/Shamlat land. It has been further provided that all these land be restored to Gaon Sabha/Gram Panchayat for the common use of Villagers of the Village.

24. In view of above, the action of the respondents is void and without any jurisdiction. The authorities below were not justified in rejecting the application for cancellation of the lease. It is settled principal of law if an order has been obtained by fraud, the said order is void and its validity can be questioned as soon as the fraud comes to knowledge of the concerned party. The authorities below have not examined the case from the said angle and proceeded to dismiss the application for cancellation of lease. Such approach is wholly unwarranted in law.

25. It is not out of place to mention here that under section 198 power to cancel lease is granted not only to aggrieved person but it is also confers suo moto power on the authority. The authorities below, therefore, should have exercised the suo moto power for cancelling the illegal allotment in favour of the contesting private respondent no.6.

26. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State, the fact that it was a pasture landand its land use is being changed has not been disputed.

27. In this view of the matter, the impugned orders cannot be allowed to stand. No counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent no. 6 and in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent no. 1 to 4, it has not been disputed that the said plot was not a pasture land, it is necessary in the interest of justice to issue a direction to the respondent no. 3, the Collector, Mau to evict the respondent no. 6 forthwith, in any case not later than one month from the date of production of certified copy of this order before him.

28. The respondents are further directed not to allot or lease out the said plot to any person. The said plot shall be restored as pasture land. No person or authority shall be entitled to change its use.

29. From the record, prima facie it is evident that the officials were hands in glove with the contesting private respondent no.6 with a view to illegally grab the common land of the villagers. Let an inquiry be conducted against the then officials who accorded the permission for treating the land in dispute as a vacant land by ordering the change of revenue entry and the officials who have accorded the sanction of the proposal of Gaon Sabha if any for allotment of the disputed land to the contesting respondent no.6.

30. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed with cost of Rs.50,000/- payable by the contesting private respondent no.6. Out of the said amount, a sum of Rs.10,000/- shall be payable to the petitioner and the remaining amount shall be payable to the Gaon Sabha. One month time is granted to pay the said cost failing which it shall be open to the Collector to recover the said amount along with the collection charges from the contesting private respondent in accordance with law. Both the impugned orders dated 23.11.2004 and 19.10.2006 are hereby set aside. The authority concerned is required to take immediate action for the restoration of the land in question as public utility land by evicting the respondent No. 6 from the land in dispute, as directed above.

Source : https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56b49129607dba348fffb5cd

PARASHURAM V D.D.C

Allahabad High Court 

C.M.W.P. No. 9539 of 1978 (18 Jul, 2011)

Prakash Krishna,J.-

1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms. Madhu Tandon, learned standing counsel for the respondent nos.1, 2 and 3. The dispute relates to plot No.312/1 area 1.06 acres situate in village Chakia, Tappa Bhatni, Pergana Shahjahanpur, Tehsil and District Deoria. During the consolidation operation, Gaon Sabha filed objection against the recorded tenure holders over the said plots. The Gaon Sabha came forward with the case that the aforesaid plot is a pasture land and is wrongly recorded in the basic year in favour of the petitioners herein. The case of the Gaon Sabha has been accepted by all the three authorities below.

2. Challenging the orders passed by the Consolidation Officer, Settlement Officer Consolidation in appeal and of Deputy Director of Consolidation in revision, the present writ petition has been filed.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners took the aforesaid plot from the Ex-Zamindar. A suit under section 59/61 of the u.p. tenancy act was filed against Chhedi and others who were co-sharers in Khewat Khata No.1 wherein the plot in dispute is comprised. Petitioners' names were recorded on the basis of the decree passed in the aforesaid suit. An application to recall the judgment and decree in the said suit was filed by the Gaon Sabha which was ultimately rejected. The submission is that in view of the judgment and decree passed in the aforesaid suit, the authorities below were not justified in expunging the names of the petitioners over the plot in question.

4. Ms. Madhu Tandon, learned standing counsel, on the other hand, submits that in view of section 8 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, the decree passed in the aforesaid suit is not binding on the State. Elaborating the argument it was submitted by her that there is ample evidence on record to show that in the revenue record the plot in dispute was recorded as pasture land. The said pasture land could not be let out or transferred in any manner by the Zamindar in view of the Section 8 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act after 8th of August, 1946. Further it was submitted by her that in the present case the transfer in favour of the petitioners is after that date.

5. Considered the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. A bare perusal of the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation would show that theland in dispute was recorded as grass growing land in the revenue year 1355 to 1359 which corresponds to the year 1946 and onwards. Section 8 of the UPZA & LR Act provides that any contract for grazing or gathering of produce from land or the collection of forest produce or fish from any forest or fisheries entered into after the eighth day of August, 1946, between an intermediary and any other person in respect of any private forest, fisheries, or land lying in such estate shall become void with effect from the date of vesting.

7. In order that section is attracted it is necessary that such contract shall be entered into after 8th of August, 1946 and shall be in respect of any forest rights, fisheries, or landlying in such estate. The reason is that if the estate is vested any contract with respect to anything produced or coming from the same also becomes incapable of performance since the date of vesting. The importance of date 8th of August, 1946 is on that date the United Province Legislative Assembly passed a resolution which reads as follows:-

"This Assembly accepts, the principle of abolition of Zamindari system in this Province which involves intermediaries between the cultivator and the State, cannot resolve that the rights of such intermediaries should be payment of equitable compensation and that the Government should appoint committee to prepare a scheme for this purpose."

8. Accordingly, a Committee was appointed who gave its report in July, 1948 and thereafter, the aforesaid Act was enacted which received the assent of the President on 24th of January, 1951.

9. The cut off date 8th of August, 1946 was fixed to prevent unscrupulous Zamindar to make contracts with a view to acquire benefits when the Zamindari was abolished. With that view in mind, section 8 provides that certain contracts shall be deemed void made after 8th of August, 1946. Coming to the facts of the case on hand, according to the own showing of the petitioner the Zamindar gave him the land in dispute (plot No.312/1) after the aforesaid date. The said plot was earlier recorded as Charagah in the revenue record. It appears that a collusive suit was filed being suit No.1531 of 1951 by the petitioner just to get the seal of the Court on the contract given to him by the Zamindar. The suit was decreed on 26th of July, 1951. In the said suit the Gaon Sabha was not a party and it was a suit against other co-sharers of Zamindar alone. The suit being collusive and was filed with an oblique motive, to take the benefit of the forthcoming new enactment relating to the abolition of Zamindari, such decree has no legal sanctity. Any entry in the revenue record on the basis of this decree of such suit will not confer any right, title or interest to a person who was a party to such collusive proceedings. At least, such person cannot be permitted to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under article 226 of the constitution of india. The said power has been given to High Court to do justice and not to perpetuate a collusion or fraud. Justice should be necessarily in conformity with the statutory provision and it cannot be violative of statutory provision.

10. The object of Gochar or grazing land is to provide to villagers to graze their cattle free of cost and without any money. Grazing land provides economic support to indigent villagers and it is a very source and means of livelihood for such persons. Grazing land is part of our ecology and helps a lot in maintaining our ecological balance by providing domestic animals of the villagers, their natural habitation, natural home and natural environment and natural vegetation.

11. Recently, the Apex Court in the case of Jag Pal Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others, JT 2011 (1) SC 617 examined the dispute with regard to the public utility landin the villages. It has taken a very serious view of one such public utility land namely pond and has provided that the land recorded as pond must not be allowed to be allotted to anybody for construction of house or any like purpose. Hinch Lal Tiwari Vs. Kamla Devi, JT 2001(6) SC 88, is an authority for the above proposition. In para 20 of the judgment in the case of Jag Pal Singh, the Apex Court has observed that

"The time has now come to review all these orders by which the common village land has been grabbed by such fraudulent practices."

12. In para 22 of the judgment the following general direction has been given:-

"Before parting with the 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."

13. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that under section 8 of the Act only certain contracts have been laid down to be void which is not so here as in the case on hand a decree has been passed, is of no substance.

14. It is difficult to agree with him. On own showing of the petitioners they took the land in dispute from the intermediary after 8th of August, 1946. The object and purpose of enacting the Section 8 was to protect the pasture land, private forest, fisheries etc..

15. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. The writ petition is devoid of substance. It is dismissed accordingly. The stay order is vacated.

Source : https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56b49150607dba348fffbcaa

Kunwarpal Singh vs. State of Uttarakhand & Ors. [09.12.2014]

Uttarkhand High Court

WPPIL--65/2011 (December 9, 2014)

1.Since common questions of law and facts are involved in the above titled writ petitions, hence the same are being taken up together and are being adjudicated by this common judgment.

2. The question of a great public importance has been raised in these petitions about the manner in which the ponds/water bodies, common grazing land, playground etc. have been encroached upon by the unscrupulous people. The revenue entries have also been altered without due authority of law. There is a widespread encroachment over the land of Gram Panchayats. The State Government is remiss in discharge of its duties. It is the duty cast upon the State Government to protect/preserve/conserve the water bodies taking into consideration their importance to the environment and ecology of the area. The village ponds provide water to the villagers, cattle and also recharges the underground water.

3. It has also come to the notice of the Court that various Revenue Courts have regularized the encroachment on the public ponds/ water bodies without authority of law. The area of the Gram Panchayat land has also shrunk. The Gram Panchayat land belongs to the entire community.

4. The Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of Jagpal Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and others reported in (2011) 11 SSC 396 and in the case of Hinchlal Tiwari Vs. Kamla Devi & others reported in [2001(92) R.D. 689] have categorically held that regularization of the encroachment of Gram Panchayat land is impermissible. The Lordships of Supreme Court have held that para nos.2, 13 18 and 23 have held as under:

 Since time immemorial there have been common lands inhering in the village communities in India, variously called gram sabha land, gram panchayat land, (in many North Indian States), shamlat deh (in Punjab etc.), mandaveli and poramboke land (in South India), Kalam, Maidan, etc., depending on the nature of user. These public utility lands in the villages were for centuries used for the common benefit of the villagers of the village such as ponds for various purposes e.g. for their cattle to drink and bathe, for storing their harvested grain, as grazing ground for the cattle, threshing floor, maidan for playing by children, carnivals, circuses, ramlila, cart stands, water bodies, passages, cremation ground or graveyards, etc. These lands stood vested through local laws in the State, which handed over their management to Gram Sabhas/Gram Panchayats. They were generally treated as inalienable in order that their status as community land be preserved. There were no doubt some exceptions to this rule which permitted the Gram Sabha/Gram Panchayat to lease out some of this land to landless labourers and members of the scheduled castes/tribes, but this was only to be done in exceptional cases.

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. The directions issued by the Honble Supreme Court, in the judgment cited hereinabove, were issued in the year 2011 but till date, no remedial steps have been taken by the respondent-State to salvage the property owned by the Gram Panchayats. The Gram Panchayat land belongs to the entire community and it is to be utilized and managed for the common good of the society.

9. Accordingly, the following mandatory directions are issued to the State Government:- A. The State Government is directed to remove all the encroachments from the village ponds/johars, play grounds and common grazing land within a period of six months from today. B. The State Government is also directed through Secretary Revenue to ensure that all the illegal entries changing the nature of the ponds/ common grazing land/ johar are reversed and the land is restored to its original nature, and if necessary, by carrying out digging up operations. C. The State Government is also directed through the respective SDMs to ensure that all the johars/ponds/water bodies are fenced and protected. D. The State Government through office of Chief Secretary is directed to ensure that henceforth, no johar/ponds/water bodies/ common grazing land is encroached by anyone through the State of Uttarakhand. E. The State Government is also directed to ensure that no sewerage flows into the water bodies and their water quality is maintained throughout the year. The endeavor of the State Government should be to restore the village ponds/water bodies, as they existed in the year 1951 when the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act was made applicable. G. The Sub Divisional Magistrates of the respective areas are directed to constitute a Committee comprising of six members including the Pradhan of the Panchayat to identify and locate the ponds/water bodies in their respective jurisdiction.

10. List these matters after six months.

11. The Chief Secretary shall file the compliance report on his personal affidavit within this period. (Lok Pal Singh, J.) (Rajiv Sharma, J.) 13.06.2018 Balwant/ sukhbant.

Source : https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5b27f0579eff432f35a3ff2d

Faridkot to Revive 103 Ponds to Avoid the Fury of Floods

Balwant Garg | The Tribune | 19 June 2018

Faridkot: Days before the onset of monsoon, the district administration and the panchayat department has embarked on a time-tested formula to avoid the fury of floods. Adding another chapter to the Tandarust Punjab Mission, the district administration has started cleaning and digging up 103 ponds in the district. Sixty of these have already been revived with cleaning and deepening.

In the past, as almost all villages have suffered damage to homes, roads, and crops due to floods during the monsoon time, the village ponds, commonly known as “chhaper” or ‘tobas’, are most talked about in rural areas and administrative circles to reduce the risk of floods.

As ponds used to help in controlling flood water and even save villages from drought, so we have started cleaning and deepening these ponds so that these help in retaining the more quantity of rainwater, further helping in recharging the ground water sources, said Rajeev Prashar, Deputy Commissioner, Faridkot.

He said 103 ponds had been identified in Faridkot district and these included 32 ponds in Faridkot block, 39 in Kotkapura and 32 in Jaito block. We were taking the help of village panchayats and youths in this project, said the DC.

The ponds, which used to save the village in the past from drought and floods and were highly useful for natural recharging of underground, were now victims of greedy people and land grabbers as in most of the villages these ponds were either silted or filled up and encroached upon, said Sant Balbir Singh Seechewal, a crusader against rivers’ pollution. 

Earlier these ponds were recharging the ground water but now the sewerage dumped in these ponds is further polluting the groundwater in the surrounding areas, said Umendra Dutt, executive director, Kheti Virasat Mission (KVM) which conducted some studies about fast vanishing ponds in the rural area in Punjab.

Taking a serious view of the encroachment of common land in village which include ponds, on January 28, 2011, the Supreme Court (SC) had directed all state governments to prepare schemes for the eviction of those occupying village commons and restore them to the community. The Apex Court had asked the states to submit compliance reports by in the next four month. But this direction of the SC failed to deter the encroachment of ponds and village common land.

Even the Punjab State Council for Science and Technology is of the opinion that village ponds need to be deepened and made bigger as these can play a very important role in conserving the natural ecosystem, said Umendra Dutt. Some time back the Council had conducted a study to determine the quality of water stored in village ponds and to develop a strategy for its optimum utilization, he said. 

Source : http://www.tribuneindia.com/news/bathinda/faridkot-to-revive-103-ponds-to-avoid-the-fury-of-floods/607871.html

Remove All Encroachments Within 6 Months: HC

Vineet Upadhyay | Times of India | June 14, 2018

Nainital: Uttarakhand high court on Wednesday ordered the state government to remove all the encroachments from village ponds/johars, play grounds and common grazing land within a period of six months and to constitute a committee comprising of six members, including the pradhan of the village panchayat, to identify and locate the ponds/water bodies in their respective jurisdiction.

The order by division bench of justices Rajiv Sharma and Lok Pal Singh dated June 13, 2018 stated, “The chief secretary shall file the compliance report on his personal affidavit within this period.”

The court also directed the government to ensure that all the illegal entries changing the nature of the ponds/ common grazing land/ johar are reversed and the land is restored to its original nature, and if necessary, by carrying out digging up operations.

The HC in series of directions ordered the state government to ensure that all the johars/ponds/water bodies are fenced and protected, to ensure that encroachment doesn’t take place.

The HC remarked, “The state government is remiss in discharge of its duties. It is the duty cast upon the state to protect/preserve/conserve the water bodies taking into consideration their importance to the environment and ecology of the area.”

In another decision, the high court ordered the constitution of a four-member “high-powered” committee to verify encroachments by hotels and resorts adjacent to Corbett Tiger Reserve (CTR) in Nainital and Almora districts.

The four-member committee includes senior advocate BC Pandey and other practicing advocates of the HC — Shobit Anjali Bhargav and Mahavir Singh Tyagi. District magistrate of Nainital, sub-divisional magistrate of Ramnagar and revenue officials of Ramnagar will be assisting the committee.

Source : https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/dehradun/remove-all-encroachments-within-6-months-hc/articleshow/64592114.cms

Panchayat Department kickstarts public land protection drive

M.S Vidyanandan|May 27, 2018| The Indian Express

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM:  The Panchayat Department has embarked on a mega drive to protect public land owned by gram panchayats. As a first step, all 941 panchayats have been asked to collect details of public/puramboke land under their limits.Panchayat Department director P Marykutty said public/puramboke land owned by panchayats was facing rampant encroachment. “These encroachments will be evicted in a time-bound manner. Now, we have asked all local bodies to record the details of such land, including encroached properties, in their asset register,” she said.

The local bodies have been asked to update the asset register with full details of the land, including survey number.All public land, except those coming under the Revenue Department, is owned by the local self-government concerned. Ownership of all roads except national highways, state highways and district roads, all public water resources and adjacent non-private land is vested with the local bodies. Public cattle grazing fields, cemeteries and non-Revenue puramboke land are also panchayat properties.The director’s circular warns of strict action against the assignment of puramboke land, especially land lying adjacent to canals and waterways.

“There are a large number of complaints against illegal assignment of public pathways and canal puramboke to private individuals. In several places, encroachment of canal land had caused disruption of water flow and farming activities,” she said.The director said the department does not have data on the extent of land under local bodies, which affects the reclamation of encroached properties.“After updating the asset registers, a centralised database will be prepared. Then, a proper plan will be worked out for evicting encroachments,” she said.The department will ask its inspection wing to check whether all local bodies have updated their asset register properly.

https://www.firstpost.com/india/punjab-village-common-lands-act-states-land-rights-empower-dalit-farmers-allow-them-to-lead-better-lives-4485371.html

News Clipping: Civil court order giving private owners Gwalpahari land ownership stayed [22.05.2018]

Shubra Pant|Times of India| May 22, 2018

The Gwalpahari land dispute has taken another turn, with the sessions court on Monday ordering a stay on the Gurugram civil court’s ruling that ownership of the land rests with private entities and not the municipal corporation.


The MCG had filed an appeal against the civil judge’s order in the court of lead additional sessions judge JS Kundu.



The order asked all parties in 98 cases to maintain status quo. Caveats have been filed in 20 more cases, which means an order can be passed only after hearing the entity against which the MCG approached court. In total, 322 affected entities have filed 118 different suits in this case, at the heart of which lies 464 acres of prime land in Gwalpahari, off Gurugram-Faridabad road. “As per the Punjab Village Common Land Act, the land belongs to the panchayat,” said MCG commissioner Yashpal Yadav.

Private parties in the case refused to comment.

One of the private entities, Metro Valley Projects, had moved the high court over ownership of the land. The high court had transferred the case to the civil court and asked it to adjudicate. In a judgment dated July 2016, the high court had ruled that common land (shamlat deh) in villages that have been notified under municipal corporations but have been contributed by individual land owners to panchayat for agrarian purposes belong to the original individual owners.

In its order on April 16 this year, civil judge Prashant Rana, while deciding in favour of the private entities, had ruled, “The plaintiffs are declared to be owners in possession of their respective suit lands in the cases they have prayed to be declared so.” The judge had also declared all show-cause notices issued by MCG to the private parties as illegal and void.

The ownership of the Gwalpahari land has been the subject of a tussle between the government and private entities since the mid-1950s when a mutation was carried out transferring ownership to the gram panchayat. After that, several Gurugram administrators passed a series of contradictory orders that saw ownership of the land swinging between the private parties and the government.

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/gurgaon/civil-court-order-giving-private-owners-gwalpahari-land-ownership-stayed/articleshow/64264153.cms