Bombay High Court in Baigya Jamlal Chavan vs. State of Maharashtra [08.12.2021]

In this order, a curious interpretation has been made of the Jagpal Singh case.

_________________________________________________________

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 

WRIT PETITION NO.3181 OF 2020 

BAIGYA JAMLAL CHAVAN 

VERSUS 

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS 

Mr S. S. Thombre, Advocate for petitioner; 

Mr D. R. Kale, G.P. for respondent Nos.1 to 6; 

Mr S. C. Swami, Advocate for respondent No.7 

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE AND S. G. MEHARE, JJ.

DATE : 8th December, 2021 

PER COURT:

1. We have briefly heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader on behalf of the respondents/State and the learned Advocate for respondent No.7.

2. The learned Government Pleader makes a serious grievance as regards a project being stalled, though the encroachments were removed and by recording the said statement on 03/03/2020, status-quo was directed to be maintained by this Court. Thereafter, the petitioner and his accomplice/encroachers have again occupied 'Gairan' land and have tried to erect their huts.

The learned Government Pleader submits that a case of Contempt of Court is surely made out.

3. The learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that there are several families along with him. Though they are encroachers, they have occupied the land for more than 40 years. They cannot be removed from the said land as the Government has a scheme for regularization of encroachments on Government lands.

4. The learned Government Pleader submits that such request for regularisation of encroachment has already been rejected by the District Collector vide order dated 06/12/2007.

5. We find that, even if the case of the petitioner is taken at it's best, he may be entitled for regularization of the encroachment and if such regularization of encroached lands is a part of a project, the petitioner may be entitled to compensation.

6. We also find that there is a scheme called as the 'Gharkul Yojana' and the Project Officer, Integrated Adivasi Development Project', Aurangabad has written to one such similar encroacher 3181.20wp to come forward with documents so as to consider the case for allotment of a home.

7. Be that as it may, considering the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Jagpal Singh & ors. vs. State of Punjab & Ors., (2011) 11 Supreme Court Cases 396, a public project cannot be stalled. Several judgments have been delivered by the Hon'ble Apex Court after Jagpal Singh case, indicating that the Court should be extremely slow in stalling a public project by passing injunctory orders.

8. In the peculiar facts as recorded above, we call upon the learned Government Pleader to take instructions as to whether, purely for the time being and as an interim measure, the petitioner had similarly situated encroacher in the land at issue in this petition, are relocated to any portion of Government land in the vicinity, so that they would not be thrown on the streets and at the same time, a public project could go ahead. We also add that such re-location as an interim measure would be subject to the pending claim of the petitioner in this petition, for regularization of the encroachment and no rights or equities would be created in favour of the petitioner or similarly situated persons.

9. We are listing this petition on 17/12/2021 in the urgent category.

(S. G. MEHARE, J.)                                                                         (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)