HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Court No. - 10
Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 419 of 2021
Petitioner :- Prahaladi
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 15 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sudhir Bharti
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 writ of Mandamus directing the respondent Nos.1 to 6 to dispossess the respondent Nos.6 to 12 from the Gram Sabha land/public land i.e. Araji No.140 area 0.093 hectare which is recorded as pond land in the revenue record of village Khothha Tola Semrauna Tehsil Hata Post Office Turkdheeha District Kushinagar.
3. The notices were accepted by the Standing Counsel on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Sri Azad Rai Advocate accepted notice on behalf of respondent No.5.
4. It appears from perusal of the record that the petitioner is a native of Khothha Tola Semrauna Tehsil Hata Post Office Turkdheeha District Kushinagar. It is stated in the PIL that Araji No.140 area 0.093 hectare is recorded as pond land, which is a public utility land, situated in the aforesaid village. The respondent Nos.6 to 12 forcibly encroached the aforesaid pond. When the petitioner came to know regarding the aforesaid fact, he made an application before the District Magistrate Kushinagar on 06.06.2014. When no action has been taken, the petitioner filed again a representation on 25.06.2018 but till date no action has been taken, therefore, the petitioner is 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 musle 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/Shamlatland 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:-
7. 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.
8. 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).
9. 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.
10. So far as the present PIL is concerned, a liberty is granted to the petitioner to approach the concerned authorities 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 in Jagpal Singh and others (supra), expeditiously but after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned.
11. With the aforesaid observations, the petition is disposed off.
Order Date :- 2.3.2021
No comments:
Post a Comment