Protection of Village Commons and Water Bodies: The Supreme Court in Jitendra Singh v. Ministry of Environment & Ors.

                         REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 

                                           CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 

                                               CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5109 OF 2019 

Jitendra Singh..... Appellants(s) VERSUS Ministry of Environment & Ors.....Respondents(s)

JUDGMENT

SURYA KANT, J.

1. The instant statutory appeal has been preferred under Section 22 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 (hereinafter “NGT Act”) against the order dated 06.03.2019 of the Principal Bench of the National Green Tribunal (“NGT”), whereby appellant’s grievance against allotment of local ponds to private industrialists has been dismissed summarily without any adjudication of the lis or merits, but merely on the basis of an affidavit filed by Respondent No. 5 (Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority – hereinafter “GNIDA”) claiming that it was developing bigger alternative waterbodies.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

2. The appellant is a permanent resident of village Saini, tehsil Dadri, district Gautam Budh Nagar, which falls in the National Capital Region. He claims to be a socially-active lawyer dedicated to bettering the lives of his co-villagers and alleges that the Original Application before the NGT was triggered when around 18.01.2017 the agents of a private entity (Respondent No. 6 – M/s Sharp Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. – hereinafter “Sharp”) using excavators and other heavy machinery attempted to forcibly take over possession of a ‘common pond’, which had been in use by local villagers for a century. This was objected to by the villagers, and the appellant subsequently made a complaint on 25.01.2017 to various authorities including the District Collector. Pointing out revenue records which elucidate the commons status of the ponds, he sought directions to restrain Sharp and its agents. However, there was no action on his representation for more than 10 days, leading to another attempt by Sharp at dispossession, compelling the appellant to seek police help. A few days later, he submitted another representation to the Collector, but to no avail. Aggrieved, he was left with no recourse but to approach the NGT by way of an Original Application under Section 14 (read with Sections 15 and 18) of the NGT Act for adjudication of these environmental issues.

3. Before the Tribunal, appellant contended that large tracts of his village (but not the impugned waterbodies) had been acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ostensibly for industrial development by GNIDA. Subsequently, these acquired lands (including some local ponds) had been leased to private industrialists, including Sharp in 2012. Using revenue records obtained under the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act, appellant showed that Khasra Nos. 552 (1140 sq. meters) and 490 (8470 sq. meters) were ‘pokhar’ (pond) and Khasra Nos. 522 (1620 sq. meters) and 676 (9804 sq. metres) were ‘rajwaha’ (canal). Highlighting that the water bodies were vested in the Gram Sabhas per Section 117 of the UP Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, he contended that such land had neither been acquired, nor resumed and hence there was no power with GNIDA to transfer the same to Sharp. He further claimed to have discovered other similar illegal allotments of water bodies by GNIDA to other third-parties.

4. The appellant urged that neither the mandatory environmental clearances under the Environmental (Protection) Act, 1984 had been obtained by the industrialists nor the statutory authorities applied their mind that the project would negatively impact the environment and human health. Laying support on the Ramsar Convention and Rule 4 of the Wetland (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2010 which prohibited reclamation of wetlands, setting up or expansion of industries, permanent construction or any other activity with potentially adverse effects on ecosystem, he sought cancellation of such illegal allotments and protection of waterbodies.

5. During pendency of the proceedings, GNIDA’s representatives started filling up certain ponds and started developing an alternate area (1.25 times bigger) as a new waterbody to save the allotment made in favour of Sharp (as admitted in an additional affidavit filed before the NGT on 15.01.2019 by GNIDA).

6. Over the course of proceedings, the appellant was permitted to amend his prayers in the Original Application to enable challenge to all illegalities concerning village commons. No rejoinder or additional affidavit was filed by any respondent against the amended Original Application.

7. The NGT vide its brief impugned order dated 06.03.2019 took note of this representation of constructing alternate pond and abruptly concluded that appellant’s substantial grievance had been redressed. It accordingly dismissed his application, without venturing into the merits or the lis of the dispute.

CONTENTIONS OF PARTIES

8. This summary dismissal by the NGT has been challenged before us. Appellant raises grievance against the manner in which the NGT, without even looking at the sweep of his prayers, disposed of the matter before it, merely on the strength of a proposed affidavit (which was actually filed only on 12.03.2019, post adjudication of the application by the NGT and without any advance copy to the appellant). He further protests the haste with which his application was disposed of and how the reluctance by the NGT to conduct even a proper enquiry has resulted in conferment of illegal benefits to third parties, at the cost to the environment and local residents.

9. The appellant contends that the disputed pond is situated near the Aravali hills which are in an arid zone with a low-water table. He demonstrated how the existing sparse flora and fauna in the region was hence unlikely to survive elsewhere. Highlighting the unchecked urbanisation and construction of concrete jungles in the ecologically sensitive area, the appellant alleged that respondent-authorities were in active connivance with industrialists and real estate companies, and were negligently discharging their duties. This, he contended, violated public trust and consequently the right to a wholesome environment guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. Interpreting Article 48A and Article 51A(g) to place a duty on the State to protect the environment, including lakes and waterbodies, the appellant has sought intervention of this Court to save and restore the local ponds.

10. Per contra, learned Counsel for GNIDA (Respondent No. 5) placed reliance on a Government Order dated 03.06.2016, which he claimed permitted destruction of existing ponds and allotment of filled-up land to third-parties in certain extraordinary circumstances, with the stipulation that 25% larger alternate waterbodies be developed elsewhere. Further, he questioned recording of Khasra Nos. 552 and 490 as ‘pokhar’ in revenue record, contending that it was merely ‘slightly low-lying land’ over which some water would get accumulated during rainy season. There was statedly no water on the pond-land since the past year, showing that it was merely ordinary in nature. Even if ‘pokhar’, Khasra No. 552 was only 1140 sq. meters in size, which constituted a minuscule portion (only 1.4%) of the total allotted plot of 80,900 sq. meters. It was also explained that no other ‘pokhar’ had been included and Khasra No. 490 had not been allotted to Sharp. GNIDA also put forth a contrary allegation that the appellant was, in fact, aggrieved by non-disbursement of compensation and had set up the entire dispute as a ruse to stall development of the area so that he could instead use it for his private purpose of cattle grazing.

11. Sharp (Respondent No. 6) has averred that the disputed land was no longer vested in the Gram Sabha as the UP Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 had been repealed by the UP Revenue Code, 2006. This new Code specified that title of all lands including lakes, ponds, tanks, streams and nallas vest in the State Government. Through Section 59 of the Code, the land was merely entrusted to the Gram Panchayat, and the State retained power to alter such entrustment at any time. It claimed to have paid Rs. 25 crores as sale consideration for leasehold rights over acquired areas and is allegedly suffering as a result of litigation-induced delays.

ANALYSIS & FINDINGS

12. At the outset, we must note, that the respondents have been unable to demonstrate how the 2016 Government Order can be made applicable retrospectively, the possession having been given to Sharp in 2012. Notwithstanding this, no case of the present instance being an extraordinary circumstance (hence permitting recourse to the exceptional provisions of the Government Order) has been made before us either. Further, argument that Khasra No. 552 is a ‘slightly-sloped seasonal rainfall catchment area’ and not a ‘pond’, is creative but without merit. Photographs have been placed on record by the appellant showing that there is substantial water in the pond, which has not been controverted. Further, revenue records maintained by the Revenue Department themselves show that the land was ‘pokhar’. It is hence not open for the authorities to contradict and plead against the record without any scientific or empirical support, for such categorisation had been made by them in the past. Further, it was conceded by respondent-authorities during arguments that Khasra No. 490 was also recorded as ‘pokhar’ in revenue records and that it too had been integrated in the industrial development project.

13. Additionally, it is clear that repeal of the UP Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 and vesting of such ponds and local areas in the State by Section 57 of the UP Revenue Code, 2006 would not by itself either change the nature of land contrary to revenue record nor will defeat the long-established rights of the local people on commons. Such a proposition had unequivocally been laid down in Chigurupati Venkata Subbayya v. Palaguda Anjayya, where this Court negatived a contention that communal rights in the suit land stood abolished per Section 3 of the Estates Abolition Act, 1948 for it provided that estates, including communal lands, would stand transferred to the Government free from any encumbrance. Further, it was held that even explicit destruction of all rights and interests created by the principal or landholders, would not apply to community rights as such rights originated elsewhere.

14. Given that Section 22 of the NGT Act, 2010 specifies that the nature of the appeal shall be akin to a second appeal as specified under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, we would restrict our deliberation to a singular substantive question of law. That is, whether it is permissible for the State to alienate common water bodies for industrial activities, under the guise of providing alternatives?

15. In Hinch Lal Tiwari v. Kamala Devi, this Court settled that ‘ponds’ were a public utility meant for common use and held that they could not be allotted or commercialised. It had refused to give any weight to similar arguments of the pond having become levelled, with merely some portion getting covered during rainy season by water. Importantly, it emphasised that:

“13. It is important to notice that the material resources of the community like forests, tanks, ponds, hillock, mountain etc. are nature's bounty. They maintain delicate ecological balance. They need to be protected for a proper and healthy environment which enables people to enjoy a quality life which is the essence of the guaranteed right under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Government, including the 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 the public at large. Such vigil is the best protection against knavish attempts to seek allotment in non-abadi sites.”

16. This Court reiterated in Jagpal Singh v. State of Punjab and noted that since time immemorial, certain common lands had vested in village communities for collective benefit. Except in exceptional circumstances when used exclusively for the downtrodden, these lands were inalienable. It was observed that such protections, however, remained on paper, and since Independence powerful people and a corrupt system had appropriated these lands for personal aggrandisement. Pointing out the harms in allowing such misappropriation, the Court noted an urgent public interest in stopping such misdeeds. Further, various directions were issued for eviction of illegal occupants and restoration of the common land to villagers. It was explicitly specified that “long duration of such illegal occupation or huge expenditure in making constructions thereon” cannot be a “justification for condoning this illegal act or for regularising the illegal possession”.

17. It is uncontroverted, in the present case, that the Government Order dated 03.06.2016 was a consequence of the aforesaid judgment in Jagpal Singh. Curiously, however, Clause 5 of the Government Order carves an exception of “huge projects/works” (albeit in extraordinary circumstances) to Jagpal Singh’s strict principle of non-alienation of common waterbodies. It is clear that such ground of exception doesn’t fall under the limited class of grants to “landless labourers or members of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes, or where there is already a school, dispensary or other public utility on the land”. Such industrial activities without any rational classification, unlike the narrow class exempted, do not serve a social public purpose or benefit the local people, and thus will be hit by the inalienability bar.

18. Even otherwise, the action of the respondent-authorities contravenes their Constitutional obligations. Article 48A of the Constitution casts a duty on the State to “endeavour to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wild life of the country”, and Article 51A(g) expects every citizen to perform his fundamental duty to “protect and improve the natural environment”. A perusal of our Constitutional scheme and judicial development of environmental law further shows that all persons have a right to a healthy environment. It would be gainsaid that the State is nothing but a collective embodiment of citizens, and hence collective duties of citizens can constructively be imposed on the State. Such an interpretation of the Constitution has also been adopted in MC Mehta v. Union of India wherein this Court mandated the State to ensure mandatory environmental education to all school students in pursuance of the fundamental duties enshrined in Article 51A(g):

“24. Having regard to the grave consequences of the pollution of water and air and the need for protecting and improving the natural environment which is considered to be one of the fundamental duties under the Constitution (vide Clause (g) of Article 51A of the Constitution) we are of the view that it is the duty of the Central Government to direct all the educational institutions throughout India to teach at least for one hour in a week lessons relating to the protection and the improvement of the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wildlife in the first ten classes. The Central Government shall get text books written for the said purpose and distribute them to the educational institutions free of cost. Children should be taught about the need for maintaining cleanliness commencing with the cleanliness of the house both inside and outside, and of the streets in which they live. Clean surroundings lead to healthy body and healthy mind. Training of teachers who teach this subject by the introduction of short term courses for such training shall also be considered. This should be done throughout India.”

19. There remains therefore no doubt that it is the responsibility of the respondents to ensure the protection and integrity of the environment, especially one which is a source for livelihood for rural population and life for local flora and fauna.

20. Protection of such village commons is essential to safeguard the fundamental right guaranteed by Article 21 of our Constitution. These common areas are the lifeline of village communities, and often sustain various chores and provide resources necessary for life. Waterbodies, specifically, are an important source of fishery and much needed potable water. Many areas of this country perennially face a water crisis and access to drinking water is woefully inadequate for most Indians. Allowing such invaluable community resources to be taken over by a few is hence grossly illegal.

21. The respondents’ scheme of allowing destruction of existing water bodies and providing for replacements, exhibits a mechanical application of environmental protection. Although it might be possible to superficially replicate a waterbody elsewhere, however, there is no guarantee that the adverse effect of destroying the earlier one would be offset. Destroying the lake at Khasra Nos. 552 and 490, for example, would kill the vegetation around it and would prevent seepage of groundwater which would affect the already low water-table in the area. The people living around the lake would be compelled to travel all the way to the alternative site, in this case allegedly almost 3 kms away. Many animals and marine organisms present in the earlier site would perish, and wouldn’t resuscitate by merely filling a hole with water elsewhere. Further, the soil quality and other factors at the alternate site might not be conducive to growth of the same flora, and the local environment would be altered permanently. The respondents’ reduction of the complex and cascading effects of extinguishing natural waterbodies into mere numbers and their attempt to justify the same through replacement by geographically larger artificial water bodies, fails to capture the spirit of the Constitutional scheme and is, therefore, impermissible.

22. Hence, it is clear that schemes which extinguish local waterbodies albeit with alternatives, as provided in the 2016 Government Order by the State of UP, are violative of Constitutional principles and are liable to be struck down.

23. For the reasons stated above, we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order passed by the NGT. The allotment of all water bodies (both ponds and canals), including Khasra Nos. 552 and 490 to Respondent No. 6, or any other similar third party in village Saini, tehsil Dadari, district Gautam Budh Nagar is held to be illegal and the same is hereby quashed. Since this Court has on 15.07.2019 already directed the parties to maintain status quo, Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 shall restore, maintain and protect the subject-water bodies in village Saini. Respondents are further directed to remove all obstructions from the catchment area through which natural water accumulates in the village ponds, all within a period of three months.

………………………….. J.
(ARUN MISHRA)

………..…………………...J.
(SURYA KANT)

NEW DELHI
DATED : 25.11.2019

Gauhati HC in Tetlirtol Unnayan Samiti & Ors. vs. State of Assam [06.11.2023]

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

Case No. : WP(C)/23/2015

TETLIRTOL UNNAYAN SAMITI and 12 ORS
REP. HEREIN BY ITS PRESIDENT MD. MONOWAR HUSSAIN HAVING ITS
OFFICE AT VILLAGE TETELIRTOL, MOUZA- JANIA DIST. BARPETA,
ASSAM.

2: MONOWAR HUSSAIN
S/O MD. SANU KHAN R/O VILL- TETLIRTAL
MOUZA- JANIA DIST. BARPETA
ASSAM.

3: BAHAZ UDDIN
S/O NAYEJ UDDIN R/O VILL- TETLIRTAL
MOUZA- JANIA DIST. BARPETA
ASSAM.

4: ABBAS ALI
S/O IMAM ALI R/O VILL- TETLIRTAL
MOUZA- JANIA DIST. BARPETA
ASSAM.

5: ABDUL MAZID
S/O ABDUL GONI R/O VILL- TETLIRTAL
MOUZA- JANIA DIST. BARPETA
ASSAM.

6: JAHIDUL ISLAM
S/O MANDAJ ALI R/O VILL- TETLIRTAL
MOUZA- JANIA DIST. BARPETA
ASSAM.

7: BASER ALI
S/O BAHAJ UDDIN R/O VILL- TETLIRTAL
MOUZA- JANIA DIST. BARPETA
ASSAM.

8: UHAR ALI
S/O IMAM ALI R/O VILL- TETLIRTAL
MOUZA- JANIA DIST. BARPETA
ASSAM.

9: IDRISH ALI
S/O AANJU MIA R/O VILL- TETLIRTAL
MOUZA- JANIA DIST. BARPETA
ASSAM.

10: RAIMAN NESSA
C/O KANTU SIKDAR R/O VILL- TETLIRTAL
MOUZA- JANIA DIST. BARPETA
ASSAM.

11: ABJAL KHAN
S/O USMAN ALI R/O VILL- TETLIRTAL
MOUZA- JANIA DIST. BARPETA
ASSAM.

12: ABDUL KHALEQUE
S/O RUSTAM ALI R/O VILL- TETLIRTAL
MOUZA- JANIA DIST. BARPETA
ASSAM.

13: RASEDA BEGUM
W/O RAMJAN ALI R/O VILL- TETLIRTAL
MOUZA- JANIA DIST. BARPETA
ASSAM

VERSUS

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS
REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM,
REVENUE REHABILITATION AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT
DEPARTMENT, SACHIVALAYA, GUWAHATI- 781006.

2:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

BARPETA DISTRICT
BARPETA
ASSAM.

3:ADDITIONAL DEPUTY
COMMISSIONER
BARPETA
DIST. BARPETA
ASSAM.

4:THE CIRCLE OFFICER
BAGHBAR REVENUE CIRCLE
BAGHBAR DIST. BARPETA
ASSAM

For the Petitioner (s) : Mr. B.D. Goswami, Advocate.
                        Mr. J.M. Gogoi, Advocate.

For the Respondent (s) : Mr. N. Goswami, Advocate.

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH
BEFORE

Order

06.11.2023 

The instant writ petition has been filed by 13 Petitioners being aggrieved by the notices issued to evict the Petitioner Nos. 2 to 13 by the Circle Officer, Baghbar Revenue Circle dated 30.12.2014 in respect to Encroachment Case No. 4/2006-07.

2. It is the case of the Petitioners herein that the Petitioners are river erosion affected persons and they are entitled to settlement over the land under their possession and as such the Petitioners have approached this Court challenging the said notices.

3. Mr. N. Goswami, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 4 submits that as per the Government Land Policy of 2019 as well as also the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Jagpal Singh vs. State of Punjab reported in (2011) 11 SCC 396, the question of settlement of the Petitioners over the said lands does not arise inasmuch as those lands have been specifically earmarked as village grazing reserve.

4. Mr. B.D. Goswami, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners submits that although the Petitioners may not have a right to get the settlement over the lands presently under their possession in view of the well settled principles of law laid down in the case of Jagpal Singh (supra), but the Petitioners being erosion affected persons are entitled to settlement of Govt. waste lands, to which the Petitioners may be given the liberty to file individual applications within a stipulated time and the Petitioners should not be disturbed till such applications are disposed of.

5. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the question of interference with the notices impugned in the instant proceedings does not arise inasmuch as the Petitioners herein have no right to remain in possession or even get settlement of the lands which have been specifically earmarked for village grazing reserve. Be that as it may, the materials on record clearly show that the Petitioners are erosion affected persons and as such would be entitled as per Government Land Policy of 2019 for seeking allotment/settlement of Government waste lands provided they meet the eligibility.

6. Accordingly, this Court therefore disposes of the instant writ petition thereby granting liberty to the Petitioners herein to file individual applications before the District Commissioner, Barpeta within 30 days from the date of the instant order as per the provisions of the Government Land Policy of 2019. The Respondent Authorities as well as the Revenue Department of the Government of Assam shall duly consider such applications as per the extant Land Policy. It is further made clear that till the said applications are not disposed, the Respondent Authorities shall not disturb the possession of the Petitioners over the lands in question.

7. With the above observations and directions, the instant writ petition stands disposed of.

Punjab & Haryana HC in Harnek Singh vs. State of Punjab [02.06.2023]

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:080920-DB 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 

CWP-22863-2021 

Date of decision : 02.06.2023 

HARNEK SINGH                                                                                                 -PETITIONER 

VERSUS 

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.                                                                    -RESPONDENTS 

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESHWAR THAKUR 

                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI 

Present: Mr. Rai Singh Chauhan, Advocate with 

Mr. Rohit Sapehiya, Advocate and 

Ms. Deepika Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioner. 

Ms. Monika Jalota, Sr. DAG, Punjab. 

Mr. B.S. Ichhewal, Advocate for the respondent No.8. 

*** 

KULDEEP TIWARI, J.

1. Through the instant writ petition, the petitioner has sought the issuance of a mandamus upon the official respondent(s) concerned, to consider the grievance of the petitioner, as carried in the representation dated 13.08.2021 (Annexure P-5), and, also to conduct an inquiry in terms of the directions, as carried in Annexure P-6, issued by the respondent No.2, on the premise that the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat concerned (respondent No.9), has constructed a community hall over the disputed pond (Chappar) in Village Badial by filling it with sand, which exists for the last more than 50 years and was used for common purposes by the inhabitants of the village concerned.

2. By placing reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in case titled "Jagpal Singh and others V/s State of Punjab and others", 2011(1) ICC 742, the learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the factual matrix of the present case causes breach of the directions, as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case (supra), therefore, he has sought the indulgence of this Court, to take stern action against the private respondent No.9 and has also sought the restoration of the disputed pond to its original condition.

3. This Court, while issuing notice of motion in the present case, had passed the hereinafter extracted order:-

"The petitioner has approached this Court praying for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the grievance of the petitioner as highlighted in the representation dated 13.08.2021 (Annexure P-5), whereby the Deputy Commissioner, Hoshiarpur was called upon to look into the matter with regard to the encroachment on the Pond (Chappar) of village Badial as the pond has been filled in and construction is being carried out on the same. It has been asserted that in the revenue record as well as the other known facts for more than 50 years, the pond was in existence which has been filled in for carrying out illegal constructions. This act on the part of the Gram Panchayat itself, amounts to encroachment on the pond i.e. Khasra No.438, in violation of the provisions of the statute as also the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Jagpal Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and others, Civil Appeal No.1132 of 2011 decided on 28.01.2011' and as on to the judgment of this Court in 'CWP-9885-2020 titled as Terjinder Kumar and others Vs. State of Punjab and others' decided on 15.07.2020 (Annexure P-3). It has further been asserted that not only this, even the Director Rural Development and Panchayat, Punjab had vide communication dated 08.09.2021 addressed to the District Development and Panchayat Officer, Hoshiarpur (Annexure P-6) and vide letter dated 15.09.2021 sent by the Director Land Records, Punjab (Annexure P-7) to the Deputy Commissioner, Hoshiarpur had called upon these authorities to inquire into the allegations that has been made by the petitioner with regard to filling up of the pond and making construction therein but despite the same, no action has been taken. Petitioner has also approached the Deputy Commissioner, Hoshiarpur vide complaint dated 08.10.2021 (Annexure P-8) but without any response thereto as well. He, on this basis, asserts that the action on the part of the Gram Panchayat is totally unacceptable and in violation of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court and also in violation of the statutory provisions of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act 1961.

Learned counsel for the State of Punjab prays for an adjournment to seek instructions. Let the Deputy Commissioner, Hoshiarpur and also the District Development and Panchayat Officer, Hoshiarpur respondent Nos.4 and 6 respectively file their specific affidavit as to what action has been taken by them in pursuance to the representation/ directions received from the office of the Director Rural Development and Panchayat Punjab and Director Land Records, Jalandhar, respondent Nos.2 and 3, within a period of four weeks from today.

Status quo with regard to construction, if any, be maintained on the land in question i.e. Khasra No.438 till the next date of hearing. The Deputy Commissioner, Hoshiarpur shall ensure that no further construction is carried out on the land referred to above.

Adjourned to 21.12.2021."

4. In response to the notice being issued by this Court, the official respondent(s) concerned furnished their reply, through an affidavit sworn by respondent No.6, i.e. District Development and Panchayat Officer, Hoshiarpur. However, a perusal of the reply (supra) reveals rather a completely contrasting picture, than the one canvassed by the petitioner, in the instant writ petition. The reply (supra) unfolds that Village Badial Sainian is a small hamlet, comprising of only about 26 houses, with a population of about 150 individuals. It further reveals that, as per the relevant revenue record(s), a "Gair Mumkin Pond", measuring 64 Marlas, was reserved during consolidation operations, but within the "abadi deh" of the village concerned, over Khasra No.438/1 (3-4), however, a government primary school was constructed over some part of the khasra number (supra), inasmuch as, the said school was constructed approx. upon 5-6 marlas, about 50 years ago. Another chunk of 5-6 marlas of land, in front of the said school, i.e. between the street and the school, is also being used for ingress and egress from the school. Apart from this, another area measuring 30 marlas is used as playground by the children of the village concerned. Ultimately, after utilization of the above portions of land, in the above manner, which was rather reserved for "Gair Mumkin Pond", only an area measuring 10 marlas remained vacant, however, this area was also used for accumulating sullage and dirty water of the village concerned. The reply (supra) is supported by a detailed map, depicting therein the exact position, as exists at the spot. It further transpires from the reply (supra) that a Gurudwara is also situated near the above land reserved for "Gair Mumkin Pond".

5. Therefore, considering the ill effects of accumulation of sullage and dirty water, in the above portion of "Gair Mumkin Pond" falling in "abadi deh", as well as the health hazards arising therefrom, an NRI of the village concerned, namely Tirath Singh, who was interested in philanthropist activities, offered to donate 30 marlas of his private land for relocation of the pond. Even the said NRI also volunteered to lay the pipelines upto the relocated pond and also to construct a community hall after filling the said pond existing within "abadi deh".

6. In pursuance of the above welfare gesture of the NRI concerned, the Gram Sabha concerned, vide Resolution dated 10.06.2020, resolved to re- locate the pond outside the "abadi deh". Moreover, the resolution (supra) also gathered support from the circular bearing No. C/H-95/22769 dated 29.08.1995, issued by the Civil Surgeon, Hoshiarpur, who opined therein that a new pond cannot be excavated within the Phirni/Lal Lakir of the village concerned. Faced with the above life hazard problems and the instructions issued by the Civil Surgeon concerned, the inhabitants of the village concerned, decided to relocate the pond outside the "abadi deh", with the financial assistance of an NRI of the village concerned.

7. Therefore, a new pond was got excavated on 30 marlas of land, which was donated by the NRI concerned, and the NRI concerned also got connected the out drains of sullage water of the village concerned, through a pipeline to the newly excavated pond, at his own expenses, which were to the tune of approx. Rs.2.91 lacs. Even the Executive Engineer concerned had also approved the laying of pipeline to the newly excavated pond, being technically correct.

8. After shifting of the original pond outside the "abadi deh", which was existing over Khasra No.438/1, upon an area measuring 10 marlas, the area of the original pond was filled up with sand and thereupon, a community hall was constructed thereon for the utilization by all the inhabitants of the village concerned. An expenditure of approx. Rs.15 lacs was incurred on the construction of this community hall, which was borne by all the residents of the village concerned and by the NRI concerned.

9. The hereinabove recorded facts reveal that the petitioner has filed the instant petition by concealing the material facts from this Court. Moreover, from a perusal of the record(s), it is revealed that the petitioner is neither an inhabitant nor a proprietor of the village concerned, which consequently gives rise to an inference that he has filed the present writ petition, not for any bonafide reason, rather for some extraneous consideration. This inference gains corroboration from the petitioner failing to make complete compliance of the order made by this Court on 09.01.2023, wherein, this Court had specifically directed the petitioner to place on record, the requisite document(s) to establish his locus standi, however, the petitioner has placed on record only a Jamabandi, which depicts that he has a very minimal share in a joint land in the village concerned. Apart from this Jamabandi, the petitioner has not produced any document on record to establish, that he is the original proprietor or pattidar of the village concerned. The order made by this Court on 09.01.2023 is reproduced hereunder:-

"1. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties for some time, the learned counsel for the petitioner, at this stage, has not been able to prima facie justify his locus standi to maintain the instant petition, before this Court.

2. Therefore, as prayed for, he is directed to place on record the list of bartandarans, prepared, and, maintained by the Patwari of the halqa concerned, with echoings thereins of the petitioner being the bartandaran in the halqa concerned.

3. List on 11.4.2023."

10. Although, the concealment of material facts (supra) and the non- establishment of locus by the petitioner, are sufficient to dismiss the present petition with costs, however, since the dispute involved in the present case, relates to re-location of a pond from within the "abadi deh" to a site outside the "abadi deh", therefore we deem it apt to further examine the matter.

11. It is not the case of the petitioner that the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat concerned had, with any malafide intention, re-located the pond, rather out of the total area reserved for pond, some portion had already been utilized by the government, by constructing a school about 50 years back, which still exists at the site concerned. Furthermore, some portion is used for ingress and egress from the said school, and, also as a playground by the children of the village concerned. After such utilization of this area, only an area measuring 10 marlas remained vacant, however, that too was used for discharge of sullage and dirty water of the village concerned. The consequence of such discharge of sullage and dirty water was spreading of life endangering diseases in the village concerned, thereby making the inhabitants of the village exposed to life hazards. Although the above acts, which though are result of a bonafide necessity of the entire villagers, may not have the sanctity of law, however, since the same have been done for the benefit of all the inhabitants of the village concerned and with no particular individual getting benefit from the above acts of Gram Sabha, resultantly the acts (supra) cannot invite wrath of this Court.

12. Insofar as the judgment (supra), as relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is concerned, the same also does not have any apt applicability to the case in hand. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the judgment (supra), while directing the respective Chief Secretaries of all the State Governments to prepare a scheme for eviction of illegal unauthorized occupants, upon Gram Sabha/Gram Panchayat/Shamlat deh land, and thereafter, restoring possession thereof to the Gram Panchayat(s) concerned, also has assigned relaxations for regularizing possession(s) in exceptional cases, vis-a-vis, where the land has been granted under some government notification to landless labourers or members of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes, or, where there is already a school, dispensary or other public utility existing on such land. Since, over some portion of the disputed land, a government school and a community center have been constructed, thereby with the same subserving a public purpose, or, the same being an educational institution and a public utility center, thus make them fall within the exception (supra), as carved in the judgment (supra) and therefore, the same are required to be regularized. The directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the judgment (supra), are extracted hereunder.

"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."

13. Village ponds are the epicenter of rural life and they also maintain balance in a fragile ecosystem. In the present case, the pond has been virtually converted into a disposal point for sullage and dirty water, which instead of maintaining balance of ecosystem in the village concerned, rather became a flash-point for spreading of various diseases. Therefore, considering the fact that the pond has already been converted into a school building and a community center, we do not find it appropriate to now order the demolition of these buildings, which are in fact, meant for the benefit of the inhabitants of the village concerned, especially considering the fact that an alternate pond has also been excavated, on the land donated by the NRI concerned, outside the "abadi deh". Therefore, in the light of peculiar facts and circumstances, we deem it appropriate to issue specific directions to the official respondent(s) concerned to prepare and thereafter, implement a comprehensive action plan for proper functioning of the newly constructed pond, so that the same can serve the purpose, which otherwise was meant to be served by the original pond.

(i) to ensure the transfer of the newly excavated pond's land in favour of the Gram Panchayat concerned, which was gifted by the NRI concerned for this purpose;

(ii) to ensure that in future, the land of pond shall not be converted or used for any other purpose;

(iii) to ensure proper installation and maintenance of treatment facilities in the village, so that sullage water of the village concerned can be safely disposed off;

(iv) to ensure proper disposal of sullage water after treatment and to ensure that the same is not disposed of in the pond;

(v) to ensure identification of sources of pollution(s) near the pond and thereupon ensure removal of such pollutant(s);

(vi) to ensure environment restoration and replenishment of surface water;

(vii) Department of Rural Development and Panchayat shall ensure providing the requisite infrastructure, such as pumping machinery, channels and pipe system for utilization of pond water;

(viiii) Department of Rural Development and Panchayat shall further ensure providing the necessary treatment facilities for proper maintenance and management, in a scientific manner, of the village pond;

Apart from the above issued directions, no further intervention is required to be made in the present writ petition. The present petition is disposed of accordingly.

The compliance report in respect of the above issued directions be submitted by the competent and responsible functionary concerned, within three months from today.

(SURESHWAR THAKUR)                                         (KULDEEP TIWARI) 

    JUDGE                                                                      JUDGE 

02.06.2023 

Andhra HC directs panchayat secretaries to identify & remove encroachments; state departments to evict from their lands [14.09.2022]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CHIEF JUSTICE 

& 

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE D.V.S.S. SOMAYAJULU 

WRIT PETITION (PIL).Nos. 140 of 2022, 112 of 2016, 233 of 2020, 271 of 2020, 317 of 2020, 12 of 2021, 130 of 2021, 208 of 2021, 240 of 2021, 259 of 2021, 4 of 2022, 94 of 2022, 100 of 2022, 101 of 2022, 125 of 2022, 128 of 2022, 129 of 2022 & 133 of 2022; 

WRIT PETITION Nos.12511 of 2010, 9470 of 2010, 10778 of 2010, 25322 of 2011 & 29658 of 2011 (Through physical mode) 

COMMON ORDER (ORAL) 

 Dt: 14.09.2022 

(per Prashant Kumar Mishra, CJ) 

The issue brought before this Court in the present writ petitions filed in the nature of public interest litigation, is regarding the inaction of the State and its authorities in protecting the government lands of different classifications, viz., tank land/grama kantham/burial ground/forest land/road margin/play ground/cart track/hill poramboke/coastal areas/grazing land etc. Since the issue is common in all the writ petitions, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 

2. At the outset, we make it clear that though the alleged encroachers of the subject government lands have been made parties to some of the writ petitions, we are not venturing into any independent allegations against any particular individual, and owing to the public interest involved, we would like to examine the duty and responsibility of the State and its authorities in protecting the government lands from encroachments. 

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 

4. The issue of encroachment of government lands/public utility lands vested in the State, which are meant for common benefit of individuals, was considered in detail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jagpal Singh v. State of Punjab reported in (2011) 11 SCC 396, while dealing with a case of encroachment of village pond. The Hon’ble Supreme Court noted that the appellants therein 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, and observed that such blatant illegalities must not be condoned and even if houses were constructed on the land in question by the encroachers, they must be ordered to be removed and possession of the land must be handed back to the Gram Panchayat. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further observed that regularization of such illegal constructions must not be permitted because the constructions were made on Gram Sabha land, which must be kept for common use of the villagers of the village, and that the Court cannot allow the common interest of the villagers to suffer merely because the unauthorized occupation has subsisted for many years. In the above judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to its earlier decision in M.I. Builders (P) Ltd. v. Radhey Shyam Sahu reported in 1999 (6) SCC 464, wherein restoration of a park after demolition of a shopping complex constructed at a cost of more than Rs.100 crores was ordered. The Hon’ble Supreme Court also referred to its another decision in Friends Colony Development Committee v. State of Orissa reported in 2004 (8) SCC 733, wherein it was held that even where the law permits compounding of unsanctioned constructions, such compounding should only be by way of an exception, and observed that the said decision would apply to the cases of encroachment of village common land with even greater force. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further observed that compounding 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. The Hon’ble Supreme Court lastly referred to its decision in Hinch Lal Tiwari v. Kamala Devi reported in AIR 2001 SC 3215 (followed by the Madras High Court in L. Krishnan v. State of Tamil Nadu [2005 (4) CTC 1 Madras]), wherein the Court ordered the respondents therein to vacate the land recorded as a pond, which was illegally occupied by them, after taking away the material of the house constructed therein. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, having noted its earlier decisions referred to above, ultimately issued the following directions as contained in paragraph 22 of the judgment, which reads thus: 

“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.” 

5. It is to be noted that pursuant to the aforesaid directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the State Government of Andhra Pradesh framed the Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayats (Protection of Property) Rules, 2011 (for short, ‘the Rules of 2011’), notified vide G.O.Ms.No.188, Panchayat Raj & Rural Development (Pts.IV) Department, dated 21.07.2011. The said Rules provide for the procedure to be followed for protection of Gram Panchayat properties and eviction of encroachments. Under Rule 2 of the said Rules, the lands belonging to the Gram Panchayats have been classified into three categories, viz., (1) Category-A dealing with own and acquired properties, (2) Category-B dealing with gifts, donations, transfer of lands to Gram Panchayats and (3) Category-C dealing with properties vested with Gram Panchayats. Rule 3 provides for the procedure to be followed for protection of Gram Panchayat properties, in that, the executive authority (Panchayat Secretary) of the Gram Panchayat is required to prepare inventory of landed properties of the Gram Panchayats based on FMB (Field Measurement Book)/ FSA (Field Survey Atlas) and field inspections and the District Collectors shall instruct the Tahsildars to provide the above information to the executive authority (Panchayat Secretary) and web based solutions may be evolved over a period of time to locate Gram Panchayat lands in the public domain. After obtaining the land inventory details, Grama Sabha shall be convened to validate the information and thereafter, a meeting shall be convened by the Gram Panchayat to discuss and approve the land inventory details by passing a resolution and any objections received shall be settled as per the recorded evidence and then, the land inventory details approved by the Gram Panchayat shall be published in the District Gazette. If any property of the Panchayat is under occupation of any persons, Rule 4 would provide for the procedure for eviction of such encroachments, as per which notice and opportunity of hearing shall be provided to the party concerned before proceeding for eviction. Thus, it is apparent that the scheme formulated by the Government is a self-contained code. 

6. It is unfortunate to note that despite the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jagpal Singh (supra) as noted above and despite framing the Rules of 2011, no steps are taken by the authorities of the Gram Panchayat to protect the Gram Panchayat lands from encroachment, and similarly, no steps are being taken by the Government and its authorities in protecting the government lands, and this is evident from the fact that day in and day out, writ petitions are being filed before this Court, in the nature of public interest litigation, alleging inaction of the authorities of the State Government in protecting the government lands and removing the encroachments. As the public authorities are failing in their duties in protecting the government lands, which are meant for the common use of general public, despite bringing to their notice, public spirited persons are approaching this Court to intervene and direct the public authorities to protect the government lands from encroachments. 

7. Considering the matter in its entirety and the significant public interest involved, we deem it appropriate to issue the following directions to the authorities: 

(i) The executive authority, i.e., Panchayat Secretary, of the respective Gram Panchayats in the State shall identify the Gram Panchayat lands, which are unauthorizedly occupied/encroached, and take steps for removal of such encroachments by issuing notice and providing opportunity of hearing to the unauthorized occupants/encroachers in terms of the procedure prescribed in Rules of 2011. This complete exercise shall be done within a period of six months from today. 

(ii) So far as the encroachments over the lands concerning the Municipalities/Forest Department/Revenue Department are concerned, even if no separate Rules have been framed prescribing the procedure to be followed in the matter of removal of encroachments over those lands, the officials of the concerned Departments, i.e., the Departments of Municipal Administration, Forest and Revenue, shall also undertake and complete the exercise of identification of unauthorized occupations/encroachments over the lands belonging to their respective Departments, within a period of two months from today, and thereafter, take steps for removal of such encroachments by following the principles of natural justice, i.e., issuing notice and providing opportunity of hearing to the unauthorized occupants/ encroachers, within a further period of four months. 

8. With the above directions, the writ petitions are allowed. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. 

 [PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CJ                              D.V.S.S. SOMAYAJULU, J 

Bombay HC: Ensure no further encroachments or regularisations on grazing lands [06.10.2022]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SUO MOTU PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 2 OF 2022

High Court on its Own Motion                                                         } Petitioner

versus

The State of Maharashtra and Ors.                                                     } Respondents

Mr. Ashutosh M. Kulkarni, Amicus Curiae.

Mr. P. P. Kakade, Government Pleader with Mr. M. M. Pabale, AGP for State.

CORAM: DIPANKAR DATTA, CJ.

                 MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.

DATE: OCTOBER 6, 2022

P.C.:

1. In deference to our order dated 15th September 2022, Mr. R. S. Chavan, Joint Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department, Government of Maharashtra has filed an affidavit.

2. Under paragraph 6 of such affidavit are 3 (three) tables. The first table refers to the number of encroachments on Gairan/Government lands that have been removed between 12th July 2011 and 15th September 2022. The number is 24,513. The second table refers to the extent of regularization of encroached area till 12th July 2011. The number indicated is 12,652. However, the most alarming feature is found in the third table, which suggests that there are 2,22,153 illegal constructions on Gairan lands and the approximate encroached area measures 10,089 hectares.

3. Mr. Kulkarni, learned Amicus Curiae is right in pointing out that neither the basis for regularization of 12,652 encroachments till 12th July 2011 has been indicated in the affidavit nor has the deponent indicated with any degree of clarity what step/measure is in the contemplation of the Government of Maharashtra to remove the high number of encroachments, i.e., 2,22,153, and make 10,089 hectares land free from encroachments.

4. Having perused the affidavit of the Joint Secretary and bearing in mind the submissions advanced by Mr. Kulkarni, learned Amicus Curiae and Mr. Kakade, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, we are of the considered opinion that there has only been a partial compliance of the directions issued by the Supreme Court in its decision in Jagpal Singh and Ors. vs. State of Punjab and Ors., reported in (2011) 11 SCC 396. 

5. In view of the aforesaid satisfaction reached by us, we make the following order: -

(i) There shall be no further regularization of any encroachment by any authority/officer of the Government until further orders of this Court, except in the manner directed by the Supreme Court in Jagpal Singh (supra). 

(ii) The Government of Maharashtra shall file a further affidavit indicating therein the basis for regularization of 12,652 encroachments till 12th July 2011 within 4 (four) weeks from date. 

(iii) In such affidavit, the Government of Maharashtra shall refer to the policy taken by it for removal of 2,22,153 encroachments on Gairan together with the road-map which it proposes to draw so as to facilitate removal of all encroachments by the end of this year. 

(iv) The Government of Maharashtra shall ensure that no further encroachments on Gairan lands take place, failing which this Court may be constrained to take appropriate steps against the persons responsible for checking that such encroachments do not take place. 

(v) It would desirable if a notice is issued by the Government of Maharashtra informing all its officers posted in the appropriate departments to keep a check on further encroachments on Gairan lands. 

6. List the PIL petition on 17th November 2022 for reporting compliance of this order

(MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.)                                                         (CHIEF JUSTICE)

Bombay HC: Remove encroachment from gairan land [21.09.2022]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY 

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. 

CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 4498 OF 2022 

Anandrao Mahadeo Wankhede and ors. 

 -Vs- 

 The State of Maharashtra and ors.

Mr.R.H.Kamble, counsel for the petitioners. 

Mr.K.L.Dharmadhikari, A.G.P for respondent Nos.1 to 3. 

CORAM : SUNIL B.SHUKRE & G.A.SANAP, JJ.
DATE : 21.09.2022. 

1. Heard.

2. The petitioners are occupying e-class gairan land by making an encroachment upon it. It appears that the petitioners have made some construction on a portion of land and on the remaining part of the land, the petitioners have been making cultivation. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners are entitled for retention of land and also it's regularization as their case would be covered by section 2 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, (for short the Act, 2013). They submit that there is a provision made in Section 22A of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (for Short the "MLR Code") for diversion of any land for public purpose and the public purpose would only mean any of the purposes mentioned in section 2 of the Act of 2013. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submit that tree plantation is not a public purpose, while allotment of land to the petitioners, being in the nature of rehabilitation is a public purpose and, therefore, the gairan land can be diverted for that purpose under Section 22A of the MLR Code. He also submits that till it is done, the possession of the petitioners in respect of the gairan land, which is peaceful would have to be protected by this Court.

3. While, it is true that under Section 22A(2) of the MLR Code gairan land can be diverted for any public purpose or public project, the analogy being made by the learned counsel for the petitioners between the public purpose contemplated under the MLR Code and the public purpose contemplated under the Act of 2013, is skewed. The Act of 2013 regulates acquisition of private lands for public purpose and compensation to be paid for such acquisition, while Section 22A of the MLR Code does not deal with the acquisition of private lands, but deals with diversion of the public lands like the gairan land for public purpose. It does not contemplate granting of any compensation to anyone, even to an encroacher, for such diversion. Therefore, the provisions made in Section 2 of the Act of 2013 cannot be taken recourse to, to raise an objection that the gairan land cannot be diverted for the purpose of tree plantation on the ground that tree plantation is not a public purpose. In fact, we must say it here that it defies logic to say that plantation of trees on any public land, which achieves greater public interest and public welfare, is not a public purpose and therefore, the tree plantation must not be allowed and the possession of encroachers like the petitioners be protected.

4. There is a law settled long back by the Supreme Court in the Case of Jagpal Singh and ors .Vs. State of Punjab and ors. reported in 2011(11) SCC 396, wherein the Supreme Court has held that the lands like gairan lands are public utility lands of the villages and are used for the common benefit of the villagers of the village such as ponds, storage of harvested grain, grazing ground for the cattle, threshing floor, maidan for playing by children, carnivals, circuses, public festivals, recreational purposes, cart stands, water bodies, passages, cremation ground or graveyards, and so on and so forth.

5. It has further held that these lands were generally treated as inalienable in order that their status as community land was preserved. The Apex Court has also noted that after the independence, unfortunately, such gairan lands became object of illegal use by some unscrupulous persons using muscle power, money power or political clout and the result was that large chunks of these lands were converted into private use. It was because of such illegal activities being carried out on these gairan lands, that the Apex Court gave directions to all the State Governments in the country that they shall prepare schemes for eviction of illegal/unauthorised occupants of these lands and their regularisation be not permitted save in exceptional cases as for e.g, where lease is already granted under some Government notification to a landless labourer or any member of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes but this was only to be done in exceptional cases or where there is already a school, dispensary or other public utility on the land.

6. The petitioners are private persons, who are by making encroachments on the gairan land, are illegally cultivating the gairan land. Admittedly, they have not been granted any lease, under any Government notification. The petitioners also do not fall under any other eligible categories or persons for seeking regularisation of their illegal possession of the gairan land. As such, none of the petitioners is entitled to any relief as claimed in this petition. This is not a fit case for making any intervention. The petition stands summarily dismissed.

                        (G.A.SANAP,J)                                                  (SUNIL B. SHUKRE,J) 

Supreme Court grants 'breathing time' to remove encroachment by hospital from water body [26.09.2022]

ITEM NO.27 

COURT NO.9 

SECTION XII 

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 16298/2022 

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 06-09-2022 in WP No. 23977/2022 

passed by the High Court Of Judicature At Madras) 

KOPPERUNDEVI                                                                                 Petitioner(s) 

VERSUS 

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR & ORS.                                           Respondent(s) 

(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.136614/2022-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT ) 

Date : 26-09-2022 

This petition was called on for hearing today. 

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI 

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE BELA M. TRIVEDI 

For Petitioner(s) Dr. Nanda Kishore, AOR 

For Respondent(s) 

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following 

O R D E R

The High Court of Judicature at Madras had expected in its order dated 30.11.2017 in W.P. No. 31168 of 2017, that the respondents shall take appropriate action for removal of encroachments in the watercourse, which included the land comprising Survey No. 134 at Virudhachalam Town. There had also been a contempt petition filed in the High Court bearing No. 1635 of 2022, alleging non-compliance of the order so passed by the High Court.

The authorities concerned having, thus, been jolted into action, the building in question, said to be housing a multi-speciality hospital, also came to be marked for removal, for being an encroachment over the land of watercourse/water body. As against this action, the petitioner attempted to invoke writ jurisdiction of the High Court while suggesting entitlement over the building in question, with reference to a property tax receipt of the year 2021-22. However, the petitioner essentially made the submissions before the High Court that she was ready to move to the alternative arrangement but required some breathing time for the same.

In the impugned order dated 06.09.2022, the High Court referred to the requirements of removal of encroachments with reference to the various decisions of this Court including that in Jagpal Singh v. State of Punjab: (2011) 11 SCC 396; and found no reason to grant any indulgence. Hence, the petitioner seeks special leave to appeal.

While seeking some relaxation/leniency, the petitioner has essentially stated as under: -

“The petitioner herein beg before this Hon’ble Court some time to vacate the Hospital run by the Petitioner in the name and style of “Deivam hospital” at Ulundurpet Road, Vridhachalam. The said hospital in running with 15 beds, upto 15 visiting doctors, 10 para medics such Nurses, lab technicians, ANMS and 15 non technical staff such as helpers, cashier, accountant, receptionist etc. Further, it is respectfully submitted that at present 15 in-patients taking treatment in the hospital and regularly 50 to 100 patients visit the hospital as out-patients. Further, the hospital has operation theater, ICU and lab facilities available and also wards such as common words, Special rooms and delivery wards etc. are available with the hospital.”  Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has also made a fervent plea for granting some time to vacate, particularly in view of the services being rendered in the hospital in question.

While rendering the health care services could be a laudable objective, establishment of a hospital for that purpose in the land of watercourse or water body cannot be countenanced. The reference to in-patients and other visiting patients is also seriously questionable, where a sympathy is sought to be gained with reference to their requirements.

We have no doubt that if the genuine case of a needy patient is before the revenue authorities, which include the District Collector, Cuddalore, they would take appropriate steps for ensuring alternative health care facilities to the patient concerned.

Though no relaxation as such appears available to the petitioner but, only for the purpose of extending some breathing time to the petitioner for removal of the moveables and making alternative arrangements, we are inclined to grant some time to the petitioner even without issuing notice to the respondents but, only until 10.10.2022.

Such a relaxation would be available to the petitioner only if she submits a specific undertaking to this Court supported by her affidavit within three days from today, that the building in question shall be vacated on or before 10.10.2022 and no hindrance would be caused in its removal after 10.10.2022; and further that she would not claim any compensation in regard to the removal of the encroachment as also shifting of movables. While removing the encroachment in question, the authorities shall, obviously, be expected to take appropriate care of the bona fide need of patients and provide them alternative medical support, if so required.

Having regard to the circumstances of the case, we are not disposing of this petition but would keep the same pending, while awaiting compliance from the petitioner as also from the respondents.

To avoid any ambiguity, we make it clear that another attempt to obstruct removal of encroachment was not countenanced by this Court, when we dismissed SLP(Civil) No. 15945 of 2022 on 19.09.2022, which was filed by Indra Nagar Residents Welfare Association while leaving it open for that petitioner to make appropriate request before the High Court as regards the prayer for alternative reliefs to its members, including that of rehabilitation. So far the present matter is concerned, a little breathing time is being provided to the petitioner subject to the undertaking as aforesaid only because of the reference to the likely difficulties of the patients, particularly indoor patients, who may require alternative arrangements. However, this order, in no way, absolve the authorities concerned from carrying out earnestly the task of removal of encroachments, as expected under the orders of the High Court.

List this matter on 17.10.2022.

 A copy of this order be forwarded to the District Collector, Cuddalore, for appropriate compliance and then, for submission of compliance report.

Madras HC: Bounden-duty of the Revenue officials to preserve & protect government lands; Court should not permit continued illegal occupation [02.09.2022]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS 

DATED: 02.09.2022 

CORAM : THE HON'BLE MR.MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI, CHIEF JUSTICE 

AND THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE N.MALA 

W.P.No.23104 of 2022 

Indra Nagar Residents' Welfare Association 

Rep. by its Vice President R.Vijayakumar 

No.13, Indra Nagar, Cuddalore Road 

Vrithachalam Taluk Cuddalore District.                                                                                       ... Petitioner 

Vs. 

1. The District Collector Vridhachalam Taluk Cuddalore District 607 001. 

2. The Revenue Divisional Officer Vridhachalam Taluk Cuddalore District. 

3. The Tahsildar Vridhachalam Taluk Office Vridhachalam Taluk Cuddalore District. 

4. The Commissioner Municipality Office Vridhachalam Taluk Cuddalore District.             ...Respondents 

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned order of the fourth respondent, namely the Commissioner, Municipality Office, Vridhachalam, Cuddalore District, in his proceedings bearing No.Na.Ka.No.4606/2018/F1 dated 22.07.2022, quash the same and consequently, to direct the respondents herein to allot any alternative site or adjacent to the comprising S.No.204 situated at Indra Nagar, Vridhachalam. 

For the Petitioner : Mr.D.Daniel For Mr.T.Nithya 

For the Respondents : Mr.J.Ravindran Additional Advocate General 

Assisted by Mr.A.Selvendran Special Government Pleader 

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice) The writ petition has been filed challenging the notice dated 22.07.2022 mainly on the ground that the land occupied by the members of the petitioner Association is not waterbody, but sarkar poramboke and therefore, the respondents have erroneously issued the notice stating that the land is a waterbody.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner Association submits that the members of the petitioner Association are residing in the land in question for the past 70 years and therefore, notice should not have been effected on them and hence, a prayer is made to set aside the impugned notice.

3. Learned counsel sought time on the previous occasion to furnish an undertaking to remove the encroachment within a month and therefore, the matter was adjourned for today. But, instead of giving an undertaking, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on record certain documents to prove the right of the members of the petitioner Association to possess the land. However, he could not refer to any title document to prove lawful occupation of the land, by either producing patta or assignment or any other document which may show right in favour of the members of the petitioner Association to possess the land.

4. The documents produced are revenue receipts and other documents which cannot form basis to even claim title over the land. He even failed to refer any document to show that S.No.204, for which notice has been given, is not a land of waterbody, but sarkar poramboke. The said document has now been furnished, but is not a revenue document.

5. In view of the above, the members of the petitioner Association have failed to show their title to the land in question so as to possess it, even if it is a sarkar poramboke, i.e. Government land. We do not find any document to show that S.No.204 is Sarkar poramboke. That apart, the respondents are taking action pursuant to the order of this Court in W.P.No.31168 of 2017 decided by order dated 30.11.2017. The petitioner Association did not file any application to seek recall of the order or to review the order. Even they failed to prove their right over the land, when we provided an opportunity for the same.

6. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to refer to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Joginder v. State of Haryana, (2021) 3 SCC 300, wherein it has been emphatically held as under:

"13. It is required to be noted that the persons in illegal occupation of the Government Land/Panchayat Land cannot, as a matter of right, claim regularization. Regularization of the illegal occupation of the Government Land/Panchayat Land can only be as per the policy of the State Government and the conditions stipulated in the Rules. If it is found that the conditions stipulated for regularisation have not been fulfilled, such persons in illegal occupation of the Government Land/Panchayat Land are not entitled to regularization. .....

14. At this stage, the decision of this Court in the case of Jagpal Singh v. State of Punjab, (2011) 11 SCC 396, is required to be referred to. In the said decision, this Court had come down heavily upon such trespassers who have illegally encroached upon on the Gram Sabha/Gram Panchayat Land by using muscle powers/money powers and in collusion with the officials and even with the Gram Panchayat. In the said decision, this Court has observed that "such kind of blatant illegalities must not be condoned". It is further observed that "even if there is a construction the same is required to be removed and the possession of the land must be handed back to the Gram Panchayat". It is further observed that "regularizing such illegalities must not be permitted because it is Gram Sabha land which must be kept for the common use of the villagers of the village". Thereafter, this Court has issued the following directions:

'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.' In view of the above also, the prayer of the Petitioners for regularization of their illegal occupation of the panchayat land cannot be accepted."

[emphasis supplied]

7. The decision in Joginder v. State of Haryana, supra, reiterated the view enunciated in Jagpal Singh v. State of Punjab, (2011) 11 SCC 396. In terms of the directions contained in the case of Jagpal Singh v. State of Punjab, supra, it is the bounden duty of the State Government concerned to ensure restoration of such lands for the common use of villagers of the village concerned. The State Government is obligated to make earnest efforts to restore every piece of illegally occupied land which would fall within the orders and directions issued in the case of Jagpal Singh v. State of Punjab, supra.

8. The mushroom growth of encroachment in the waterbody is affecting the environment. It is the bounden-duty of the officials of the Revenue Department to preserve and protect government lands which have been reserved for specific purposes. It is trite that when a person is a rank encroacher without any valid right or title over the land belonging to the government, the court should not permit or protect the continued illegal occupation of the land. 

9. In the light of the aforesaid and in view of the fact that the order passed by this Court in the year 2017 is yet to be complied and finding no title or right of the members of the petitioner Association in the land in question, we do not find any reason to cause interference with the impugned notice. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Consequently, WMP Nos.24349 and 24350 of 2021 also dismissed.

(M.N.B., CJ.) (N.M., J.) 

 02.09.2022

Andhra HC: Duty of Panchayat Secretary to implement Panchayat resolutions. [14.09.2022]

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARULU NIMMAGADDA 

WRIT PETITION NO.30935 OF 2021 

Veligandla Gram Panchayat

versus

The State Of Andhra Pradesh

14.09.2022

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, claiming the following relief:

"To issue writ of mandamus declaring:

(a) That the respondents 2 to 9 failed in their statutory duty to protect the petitioner's land in an area of about Ac.0-50 cts in Sy.No.344 of Veligandla Gram Panchayat (V&M), Prakasam District from encroachments;

(b) That the respondents 8 & 9 are acting prejudicial to the interest of the petitioner Gram Panchayat and in contravention of the petitioner's decisions viz; Gram Panchayat's Resolution No.6 dated 29.11.2021 and 02.08.2021 as illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and ultravires to the provisions of A.P. Panchayat Raj Act,

(c) Consequently to direct Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 to initiate disciplinary action against respondents 8 & 9 for creating and fabricating false documents supporting the clandestine claims of respondents 10 to 13 in respect of petitioner's land in Sy.No.344."

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner is a Gram Panchayat, represented by its elected ward members and duly elected Sarpanch. As per the revenue record, land admeasuring Ac.4-52 cents in Sy.No.344 of Veligandla Gram Panchayat is classified as 'Gramakantam' and it is situated in the prime locality of the village. Most of the land is filled with permanent structures like dwelling houses. Further, land admeasuring Ac.0-50 cents in Sy.No.344 is vacant and it has been used for community purposes. Out of that, an extent of Ac.0-15 cents is used as stock point for construction material (previously used for storing farm harvest). The said land and remaining portion has been in utilization for parking of vehicles, carts and also as RTC bus stop in the village. Since the vacant land admeasuring Ac.0-50 cents in Sy.No.344 is vested with the Gram Panchayat, it is the absolute title holder and vested control over the said land. Accordingly, the petitioner - Gram Panchayat passed Resolution on 02.08.2021 proposing to construct BC,SC Hostel and Library. It is submitted that, contrary to the resolution dated 02.08.2021, Respondent Nos. 8 & 9 herein acted against the interests of the Gram Panchayat and fabricated the documents to support the clandestine claims of Respondent Nos. 10 to 13 who are busy bodies and not even the residents of the village. Learned counsel further submits that, since the land is gramakantam land, it is vested with the Gram Panchayat and Respondent No.8 has no authority or power to issue any certificates, more particularly possession certificates in favour of the unofficial respondents, which is illegal and out of jurisdiction of Respondent No.8 and in support of his contentions, learned counsel placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Jagpal Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and Janabai vs. Additional Commissioner and others. Deprived of the said violations, the petitioner submitted a representations dated 30.11.2021 and 04.12.2021 to Respondent Nos. 2 to 7. But, even after receipt of the said representations, the concerned authorities have not acted upon so far. Hence, having no other option, the petitioner preferred the present writ petition.

Whereas, Secretary, Veligandla Gram Panchayat filed counter affidavit on behalf of Respondent Nos. 7 & 9, denying material allegations, specifically stating that the claim of the petitioner i.e. land admeasuring Ac.0-50 cents in Sy.No.344 is vacant is false and baseless. It is submitted that, said land is classified as 'Gramakantam' and as per the field verification on ground, it is physically in possession of the official respondents as well as the public offices which are catering the needs of the villagers. Physical possession of the land is categorized as follows:

                    1     Old Grama Chavidi           Ac.0-04 cents
                    4     Agricultural godown         Ac.0-03 cents
                    6     Peerla Chavidi              Ac.0.15 cents
                    7     Bulk milk centre            Ac.0.05 cents
                    8     Vacant site                 Ac.0.05 cents
                    9     Remaining land used for     Ac.0.97 cents
                          roads

It is further submitted that, without verifying the actual physical features of the land, the petitioner along with other members passed resolution that land admeasuring Ac.0-05 cents in Sy.No.344 is vacant and it can be utilized for construction of BC & ST Welfare Hostel, Bus Shelter, Public Library in the village, which is far away from the truth and physical verification of the land. Therefore, it is the statutory duty of the respondents, more particularly Respondent No.8 to protect the vacant land of the Gram Panchayat to make use of the same for community purpose/public purpose of the villagers.

The unofficial respondents i.e. Respondent Nos. 10, 11 & 13 filed counter affidavit along with vacate stay petition, wherein, they pleaded that they were issued possession certificates in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.0-02 cents each in Sy.No.344, which they are in possession since 30 years. After issuance of the said possession certificates by Respondent No.8, the unofficial respondents got constructed residential houses as per the housing scheme formulated by the Government. Since then they have been in possession and enjoyment of the respective house properties. If the petitioner as well as official respondents are intending to evict them, they must follow due process of law under the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for short 'the Act') and also observe principles of natural justice. It is contended that, the present writ petition is filed by the newly elected sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat out of political vengeance only. Reliance is placed on judgment of this Court in Bayya Mahadeva Sastry and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh3 and sought for dismissal of the writ petition.

A bare perusal of the documents filed by the petitioner as well as respondents and also considering the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for Gram Panchayat, this Court is of the view that, the writ petition filed, on the face of it, is misconceived, for the reason that, the petitioner itself is a competent authority to enforce the statutory duties, power and functions cast upon it, as well as, it is empowered to implement the resolution(s) in accordance with law. The fact remains that, Section 98 of the Act, empowers the Executive Authority to remove or alter any projection, encroachment or obstruction, in or over any public road vested in such Gram Panchayat, by issuing notice. Similarly, according to Section 55 of the Act, communal property administered for the benefit of the villagers shall vests in the Gram Panchayat.

Section 2(12) of the Act defined 'executive authority' means the Panchayat Secretary appointed to each Gram Panchayat. The functions of the 'Executive Authority' are enumerated in Sections 31 and 32 of the Act as follows:

31. Functions of Executive Authority. -

(1) The Panchayat Secretary, with the approval of, or on the direction of the Sarpanch, convene the meetings of the Gram Panchayat so that at least one meeting of the Gram Panchayat is held every month and if he fails to discharge that duty, with the result that no meeting of the Gram Panchayat is held within a period of ninety days from the last meeting he shall be liable to disciplinary action under the relevant rules:

Provided that where the Sarpanch fails to give his approval for convening the meeting so as to hold a meeting within the period of ninety days aforesaid, the Panchayat Secretary shall himself convene the meeting in the manner prescribed.

(2) The Executive Authority shall ordinarily attend to the meetings of the Gram Panchayat or of any committee thereof and shall be entitled to take part in the discussions thereat, but he shall not be entitled to vote or to move any resolution.

32. Functions of the Executive Authority. - The Executive Authority shall -

(a) be responsible for implementing the resolutions of the Gram Panchayat and of the Committee thereof: Provided that where the Executive Authority considers that a resolution has not been legally passed or is in excess of the powers conferred by this Act or that if carried out, it is likely to endanger human life or health or the public safety, the Executive Authority shall:

(i) where he is the Sarpanch directly;

(ii) where he is not the Sarpanch, through the Sarpanch, refer the matter to the Commissioner for orders, and his decision shall be final;

(b) control all the officers and servants of the Gram Panchayat;

(c) exercise all the powers and perform all the functions specifically conferred or imposed on the Executive Authority by or under this Act and subject to all restrictions and conditions imposed by or under this Act, exercise the executive power for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of this Act and be directly responsible for the due fulfilment of the purpose thereof.

In view of Sections 31 & 32 of the Act, it is the duty of Respondent No.9 - Secretary, Veligandla Gram Panchayat to implement the resolutions of the Gram Panchayat. If, the resolutions of the Gram Panchayat is against the public interest or health hazardous, the same shall be brought to the notice of the Commissioner for appropriate action.

In Jagpal Singh & Others v. State of Punjab & Others (referred supra), at paragraph No.4, the Apex Court held as follows:

"The protection of common rights of the villagers were so zealously protected that some legislation expressly mentioned that even the vesting of the property with the State did not mean that the common rights of villagers were lost by such vesting. Thus, in Chigurupati Venkata Subbayya v. Paladuge Anjayya4, this Court observed :

"It is true that the suit lands in view of Section 3 of the Estates Abolition Act did vest in the Government. That by itself does not mean that the rights of the community over it were taken away. Our attention has not been invited to any provision of law under which the rights of the community over those lands can be said to have been taken away. The rights of the community over the suit lands were not created by the landholder. Hence those rights cannot be said to have been abrogated by Section 3) of the Estates Abolition Act."

In view of the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the judgment referred above, particular piece of land is earmarked for public or communal purpose, it shall not be alienated even after change of classification of the land. The Apex Court concluded that when once the land was reserved for common purpose and earmarked that land, cannot be assigned, depriving the villagers at large by whatever method or mode by any authorities, more particularly by Respondent No.8, who is not the competent authority to deal with the property.

In Janabai vs. Additional Commissioner and others (referred supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows:

"Section 53 that occurs in Chapter III deals with obstruction and encroachment upon public streets and upon sites. It confers power on the Panchayat to remove such obstruction or encroachment or to remove any unauthorizedly cultivated grazing land or any other land. That apart, it also empowers the Panchayat to remove any unauthorized obstruction or encroachment of the like nature in or upon a site not being private property. The distinction has been made between private property and public property. It has also protected the property that vests with the Panchayat. If the Panchayat does not carry out its responsibility of removing the obstruction or encroachment after it has been brought to its notice in accordance with the procedure prescribed therein, the higher authorities, namely, the Collector and the Commissioner, have been conferred with the power to cause removal. There is a provision for imposition of fine for commission of offence."

In the case on hand, it appears that there are disputes between the Elected Body and Executive Authority - Gram Panchayat. As long as the resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat is not against the public at large and their interests, the Executive Authority i.e. Respondent No.9 has no other option, except to implement the same. Therefore, Respondent No.9 is directed to implement the Resolutions of the Gram Panchayat dated 29.11.2021 and 02.08.2021, as far as it can be implemented in respect of the vacant site by removing temporary encroachments, if any found after conducting detailed survey and inspection.

In the result, writ petition is allowed, directing Respondent No.9 to implement the Resolutions of the Gram Panchayat dated 29.11.2021 and 02.08.2021, as far as it can be implemented by removing encroachments in respect of the subject land by removing temporary encroachments, if any found after conducting detailed survey and inspection. It is needless for this Court to say that, Respondent No.9 shall conduct survey and inspection with the help of Village Revenue Officer and Respondent No.8 and take appropriate action for removal of encroachments in pursuance of the Resolutions of the Gram Panchayat dated 29.11.2021 and 02.08.2021. No costs.

Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed.