Rajasthan HC in Hanuman Ram vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. [20.09.2021]

HIGH COURT of JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR 

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12889/2021 

Hanuman Ram S/o Shri Kesha Ram, aged about 28 Years, Resident of Punasa, Tehsil Bhinmal, District Jalore (Rajasthan).

----Petitioner 

Versus

1. The State of Rajasthan through its Secretary, Department of Revenue, Government Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. The District Collector, Jalore.

3. The Sub Divisional Officer, Bhinmal, District Jalore.

4. The Tehsildar, Bhinmal, District Jalore.

5. Shakti Singh S/o Uttam Singh, By Caste Rajput, Resident of Punasa, Tehsil Bhinmal, District Jalore (Rajasthan).

6. Narendra Singh S/o Lakh Singh, Resident of Punasa, Tehsil Bhinmal, District Jalore (Rajasthan).

7. Surendra Singh S/o Lakh Singh, Resident of Punasa, Tehsil Bhinmal, District Jalore (Rajasthan).

8. Ganpat Singh S/o Shakti Singh Rathore, Resident of Punasa, Tehsil Bhinmal, District Jalore (Rajasthan).

9. Nathu Singh S/o Uttam Singh Rathore, Resident of Punasa, Tehsil Bhinmal, District Jalore (Rajasthan).

                                                                  ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)             :    Mr. Tejaram.


           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
                                      Order
20/09/2021

This writ petition is preferred by the petitioner seeking directions to the respondents to remove encroachments from the land comprising Khasra No.830, 834 and 930 and Khasra No.1606/647of village Punasa, Patwar Halka Punasa, Tehsil Bhinmal, District Jalore, recorded in the revenue record as 'Gochar' and Gair Mukin Shamshan Bhoomi respectively.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that despite representations being made by the petitioner the District Collector, Jalore twice, the respondents have not taken any steps for removal of the encroachment made over the land in question.

The respondents are under an obligation to remove the encroachment made on the public utility land, Gochar land etc. keeping in view the directions issued by this Court in the case of Gulab Kothari (supra) and the directions/guidelines issued by a Coordinate Bench at Jaipur in D.B. Civil Writ (PIL) Petition No.10819/2018 : Jagdish Prasad Meena & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. vide order dated 30.01.2019 reads as under:

"In order therefore to provide a pan-Rajasthan solution to this ever persisting problem, we deem it appropriate to direct the Chief Secretary of the State to devise a permanent mechanism, which should be operational in every District of the State where the concerned District Collector should be required to periodically notify for the information of the general public to lodge the complaints/representations with regard to such encroachments with a specially designated Public Land Protection Cell (for short 'PLPC') for rural areas. The PLPC should be head by District Collector and function under his direction and supervision. The PLPC shall get such complaints/representations enquired into by deputing concerned Sub Divisional Officer/Tehsildar/Naib Tehsildar so as to verity whether or not such encroachments have actually taken place on such land. If the allegations are found to be substantiated, appropriate steps in accordance with law be immediately taken for removal of the encroachments and appropriate penal action be also taken against the trespassers. The complaints/representations received in the PLPC should be decided by passing speaking order, informing the respective complainant/representationist about the action taken. This would obviate the necessity of such complainants/representationists approaching this Court directly by way of public interest litigation. If this practice is put in place, this Court would not be inclined to directly entertain such public interest litigation or would do so only in the event of inaction on the part of the concerned PLPC.

The PLPC aforementioned shall also keep in view the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in Jagpal Singh & Others vs. State of Punjab & Others, (2011) 11 SCC 396 wherein all the State Governments of the country were directed that they should prepare schemes for eviction of illegal/unauthorised occupants of the Gram Sabha/Gram Panchayat/Poramboke/ Shamlat land and the same must be restored to the Gram Sabha/Gram Panchayat for the common use of villagers of the village. The said scheme should provide for the speedy eviction of illegal occupants, after giving them a show cause notice and a brief hearing. It was further held therein that long duration of the illegal encroachment/occupation of land or huge expenditure in making construction thereon or political connections of trespassers are no justification for regularising such illegal occupation. Regularisation should be permitted only in exceptional cases where lease has been granted under some government notification .e.g. to landless labourers or members of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes or where there is already a school, hospital, dispensary, 'shamshan', 'kabristan' or other public utility of the like nature on the land.

Observations of the Supreme Court in Jagpal Singh (supra) thus leave no manner of doubt that removal of encroachment on all such land is a rule and regularisation an exception and that too in extremely limited number of cases, which only the Government can do by appropriate notification of the government and no other authority."

The respondents are expected to look into the representations made by the petitioner and do the needful in accordance with law.

The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.

 

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J                              (SANGEET LODHA),J

MP High Court in Radheshyam Singh Gurjar vs. State Of Madhya Pradesh [07.09.2021]

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 

 WP.15757.2021 (PIL) 

[Radheshyam Singh Gurjar Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.] 

Gwalior

07/09/2021 

Shri Anil Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for petitioner. 

Shri D.D. Bansal, learned Govt. Advocate for respondent/State.

Present petition has been filed in shape of PIL under Article 226 of Constitution primarily raising alleged public cause of encroachment over the Government land bearing Survey No.2510 admeasuring 0.6170 hectare at Village Churhela, District Morena (M.P.) situated in rural area but not within any Municipal area.

It is common knowledge that this Court is flooded with petitions of this nature where individuals come to this Court alleging encroachment over Government land. The Apex Court in the case of Jagpal Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab and Ors reported in (2011) 11 SCC 396 as regards grievance of encroachment has held thus :-

"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.

24. Let a copy of this order be sent to all chief secretaries of all States and Union Territories in India who will ensure strict and prompt compliance of this order and submit compliance reports to this Court from time to time."

Recently, the Coordinate Bench of this Court at Principal Seat Jabalpur in the case of Gram Panchayat Dhooma Vs. State of M.P. & Ors. (Writ Petition No.7865/2021) vide order dated 09/06/2021 after relying upon the decision of Apex Court in the case of Jagpal Singh (Supra) has held thus:-

"06. In order therefore to provide a State wide solution to this ever persisting problem, we deem it appropriate to direct the Chief Secretary of the State to devise a permanent mechanism, which should be functional in every district of the State where the concerned District Collector should be required to periodically notify for the information of the general public to lodge the complaints/ representations with regard to such encroachments with a specially designated Public Land Protection Cell (for short PLPC) for rural areas. The PLPC should be headed by District Collector and function under his direction and supervision with an officer of the rank of Tehsildar as its Member Secretary and such other Officers as its Members as the Government may deem fit to nominate. The PLPC shall get such complaints / representations enquired into by deputing concerned Sub Divisional Officer / Tehsildar / Naib Tehsildar so as to verify whether or not such encroachments have actually taken place on public land. If the allegations are found to be substantiated, appropriate steps in accordance with law be immediately taken for removal of the encroachments and appropriate penal action be also taken against the trespassers. The complaints / representations received in the PLPC should be decided by passing speaking order, informing the respective complainant / representationist about the action taken. This would obviate the necessity of such complainants / representationists approaching this Court directly by way of public interest litigation. If this permanent mechanism is put in place, this Court would not be required to directly entertain such public interest litigation and would do so only in the event of inaction on the part of the concerned PLPC.

07. The PLPC aforementioned shall also keep in view the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in Jagpal Singh & Others Vs. State of Punjab & Others, (2011) 11 SCC 396 wherein all the State Governments of the country have been directed to prepare scheme for eviction of illegal / unauthorised occupants of the Gram Sabha / Gram Panchayat / Poramboke / Shamlat land which should then be restored to the Gram Sabha / Gram Panchayat for the common use of residents of the village. The said scheme should provide for the speedy eviction of such illegal occupants, after giving them a show cause notice and a brief hearing. The Supreme Court further held therein that long duration of the illegal encroachment / occupation of land or huge expenditure in making construction thereon or political connections of trespassers are no justification for regularising such illegal occupation. Regularisation should be permitted only in exceptional cases where lease has been granted under some government notification e.g. to landless labourers or members of Scheduled Castes / Scheduled Tribes or where there is already a school, hospital, dispensary, shamshan kabristan or other public utility of the like nature on the land. Observations of the Supreme Court in Jagpal Singh (supra) thus leaves no manner of doubt that removal of encroachment on all such land is a rule and regularisation an exception and that too in extremely limited number of cases, which only the Government can do by appropriate notification and no other authority.

08. A copy of this order be forwarded to the Chief Secretary of the State of Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal for issuance of necessary notification for notifying the permanent body designated as Public Land Protection Cell (PLPC) in every District with the District Collector as its head and a Tehsildar as its Member Secretary, apart from other revenue officers as the Members. This should be given due publicity for information of all the citizens that complaint with regard to encroachment over public land in the rural areas can be made to such authorities which shall be responsible for causing an enquiry into such complaint to be made and taking expeditious action for removal of encroachments so as to protect the public land."

Accordingly, petitioner is directed to submit his representation to the Committee nomenclatured as Public Land Protection Cell (PLPC) which has been constituted in pursuance of order passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Gram Panchayat Dhooma (Supra) to scrutinize the grievance of petitioner with regard to encroachment over Government land bearing Survey No.2510 admeasuring 0.6170 hectare at Village Churhela, District Morena (M.P.) and the authorities concerned shall be responsible for causing an enquiry into such grievance to be made and taking remedial action if required, as expeditiously as possible preferably (PIL) within a period of three months from the date of preferring of representation along with certified copy of this order.

With the aforesaid directions, the present petition stands disposed of.

Rajasthan High Court in Rampal Sharma & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan [06.03.2020]

High Court Of Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench

D.B. Civil PIL (Writ) Petition No. 20881 of 2019 | 

1. Petitioners have filed this public interest litigation in connection with illegal encroachment of the water body and the catchment area of the Bandi River in Khora Bisal Village.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that this Court vide order dated 01.03.2019 passed in Anand Kumar v. State of Rajasthan (D.B.P.I.L. Petition No. 4419/2019) has directed the petitioner therein to approach the respondents by filing a detailed representation, who were further required to examine the grievances of the petitioner therein and do the needful within a period of three months from the date of filing of the representation.

3. Order dated 01.03.2019 passed in Anand Kumar v. State of Rajasthan (D.B.P.I.L. Petition No. 4419/2019) reads as under:

This public interest litigation petition has been filed by the petitioner contending that he is resident of Village Bass Bijoli, Tehsil Surajgarh, District Jhunjhunu. Certain residents of that village have made illegal encroachments on charagah land (pond/johad) bearing Khasra No. 139/38 which has resulted into obstruction of the flow of water into village pond/johad and deprived the villagers of its use. It is contended that Circular dated 25.04.2011 has been issued by the State Government in compliance of judgment of the Supreme Court in Jagpal Singh v. State of Punjab, (2011) 11 SCC 396 : AIR 2011 SC 1123 whereby allotment or regularisation of charagah land/catchments of a pond/water reservoirs and ponds for private or commercial purposes has been stopped with immediate effect. Tehsildar, Surajgarh vide order dated 26.11.2018 has declared them trespassers on charagah land and directed the Inspector (L.R.) and Patwari Halka to remove their illegal encroachments. Notices have also been served on the encroachers in pursuance of the aforesaid order. However, the trespassers have refused to remove the encroachments. The Inspector (LR) prepared a report with the help of Patwari Halka on 04.01.2019 stating that there is an apprehension of disturbance of peace at the site and removal of encroachment is possible only with the help of JCB machines, tractors and police force etc. It is submitted that the encroachers are being provided electricity connection and the poles have also been erected over the disputed land. It is quite possible that after providing electricity connections, the charagah land will be allotted/regularised in favour of the encroachers.

This Court vide order dated 30.01.2019 passed in Jagdish Prasad Meena v. State of Rajasthan , D.B. Civil Writ Petition (PIL) No. 10819/2018 took note of fact that large number of writ petitions are being filed before this Court styled as public interest litigation petitions which pertained to encroachment over the pasture land/land of johad, talab/river/river bed/public way/Shamshan/Kabristan etc. and directed the Chief Secretary of the State to devise a permanent mechanism, which should be operational in every District of the State where the concerned District Collector should be required to periodically notify for the information of the general public to lodge the complaints/representations with regard to such encroachments with a specially designated Public Land Protection Cell (for short PLPC) for rural areas. It was further directed by this Court that the PLPC should be headed by District Collector and function under his direction and supervision. The PLPC shall get such complaints/representations enquired into by deputing concerned Sub Divisional Officer/Tehsildar/Naib Tehsildar so as to verify whether or not such encroachments have actually taken place on such land. If the allegations are found to be substantiated, appropriate steps in accordance with law be immediately taken for removal of the encroachments and appropriate penal action be also taken against the trespassers. The complaints/representations received in the PLPC should be decided by passing speaking order, informing the respective complainant/representationist about the action taken. It was observed that this would obviate the necessity of such complainants/representation its approaching this Court directly by way of public interest litigation.

In view of above, instead of directly entertaining this public interest litigation petition, this Court requires the petitioner to approach the respondents by filing a detailed representation along with copy of aforesaid order, who shall examine the grievances of the petitioner and do the needful within a period of three months from the date of filing of the representation.

With the aforesaid direction, writ petition stands disposed of.

Stay Application No. 4156/2019 also stands disposed of.

4. In view of the above order, the petitioners are directed to approach Respondent No. 3 by filing a detailed representation along with copy of this order and the grievances of the petitioners shall be examined by Respondent No. 3 and needful be done within a period of three months from the date of filing of the representation.

5. Petition stands disposed of accordingly.

Madhya Pradesh High Court in Amit Rawat vs. State of MP & Ors. [01.07.2021]

The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh

WP-11274-2020

AMIT RAWAT Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

Gwalior, Dated : 01-07-2021

Heard through Video Conferencing.

Shri Rajiv Budholiya, learned counsel for petitioner.

Shri Ankur Mody, learned Additional Advocate General for respondent/State.

Shri K.N.Gupta, learned senior Advocate with Shri Praveen Newaskar, learned counsel for respondent No.6.

Present PIL has been filed primarily raising alleged public cause of encroachment by certain persons over government land in the locality of Najarbagh, District Datia.

It is common knowledge that this Court is flooded with petitions of this nature where individuals come to this Court alleging encroachment on government lands. The Court has to indulge in the process of seeking reply and deciding the matters despite the Apex court in the case of Jagpal Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and Ors. (2011) 11 SCC 396 has directed thus:

"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.

24. Let a copy of this order be sent to all Chief Secretaries of all States and Union Territories in India who will ensure strict and prompt compliance of this order and submit compliance reports to this Court from time to time."

Recently Division Bench of this Court in WP 7865/2021 (Gran Panchayat Dhooma Vs. State of M.P. and ors.) vide order dated 09.06.2021 has held thus:-

"06. In order therefore to provide a State wide solution to this ever persisting problem, we deem it appropriate to direct the Chief Secretary of the State to devise a permanent mechanism, which should be functional in every district of the State where the concerned District Collector should be required to periodically notify for the information of the general public to lodge the complaints / representations with regard to such encroachments with a specially designated Public Land Protection Cell (for short PLPC™) for rural areas. The PLPC should be headed by District Collector and function under his direction and supervision with an officer of the rank of Tehsildar as its Member Secretary and such other Officers as its Members as the Government may deem fit to nominate. The PLPC shall get such complaints / representations enquired into by deputing concerned Sub Divisional Officer / Tehsildar / Naib Tehsildar so as to verify whether or not such encroachments have actually taken place on public land. If the allegations are found to be substantiated, appropriate steps in accordance with law be immediately taken for removal of the encroachments and appropriate penal action be also taken against the trespassers. The complaints / representations received in the PLPC should be decided by passing speaking order, informing the respective complainant / representationist about the action taken. This would obviate the necessity of such complainants / representationists approaching this Court directly by way of public interest litigation. If this permanent mechanism is put in place, this Court would not be required to directly entertain such public interest litigation and would do so only in the event of inaction on the part of the concerned PLPC.

07. The PLPC aforementioned shall also keep in view the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in Jagpal Singh & Others Vs. State of Punjab & Others, (2011) 11 SCC 396 wherein all the State Governments of the country have been directed to prepare scheme for eviction of illegal / unauthorised occupants of the Gram Sabha / Gram Panchayat / Poramboke / Shamlat land which should then be restored to the Gram Sabha / Gram Panchayat for the common use of residents of the village. The said scheme should provide for the speedy eviction of such illegal occupants, after giving them a show cause notice and a brief hearing. The Supreme Court further held therein that long duration of the illegal encroachment / occupation of land or huge expenditure in making construction thereon or political connections of trespassers are no justification for regularising such illegal occupation. Regularisation should be permitted only in exceptional cases where lease has been granted under some government notification e.g. to landless labourers or members of Scheduled Castes / Scheduled Tribes or where there is already a school, hospital, dispensary, shamshan or other public utility of the like nature on the land. Observations of the Supreme Court in Jagpal Singh (supra) thus leaves no manner of doubt that removal of encroachment on all such land is a rule and regularisation an exception and that too in extremely limited number of cases, which only the Government can do by appropriate notification and no other authority.

08. A copy of this order be forwarded to the Chief Secretary of the State of Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal for issuance of necessary notification for notifying the permanent body designated as Public Land Protection Cell (PLPC) in every District with the District Collector as its head and a Tehsildar as its Member Secretary, apart from other revenue officers as the Members. This should be given due publicity for information of all the citizens that complaint with regard to encroachment over public land in the rural areas can be made to such authorities which shall be responsible for causing an enquiry into such complaint to be made and taking expeditious action for removal of encroachments so as to protect the public land."

In view of above, this Court declines to entertain this petition on merits but issues notice to the State by expanding it's scope seeking explanation of the State and it's functionaries as to why committee nomenclatured as Public Land Protection Cell has not yet been constituted at every district level. The Committee was required to be headed by the Collector of concerned district which was vested with the powers and authority to scrutinized all such complaints of encroachment over government land and take remedial action.

Learned Additional Advocate General for the State is directed to seek instructions in the matter as to whether the State has constituted the said Committee at every district level or not and if not then why ?

Apart from above, it is also required to find out as to whether decision of Apex Court in Jagpal Singh & others (supra) and Division Bench decision in the case of Gram Panchayat Dhooma Vs. State of M.P. (supra) dated 9.6.2021 at the Principal Seat at Jabalpur relates exclusively to the rural area or also covers encroachment in urban area.

Let an affidavit be filed in that respect before the next date of hearing. Let the case be taken up along with W.P. 11044/2021 in the same head.

           (SHEEL NAGU)                                    (DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL)
              JUDGE                                                     JUDGE

Madhya Pradesh High Court in Jitendra Sharma vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. [01.07.2021]

 High Court of Madhya Pradesh

WP - 11340 - 2021

Jitendra Sharma vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

01.07.2021

Shri J.P.Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Shri Ankur Mody, learned Additional Advocate General for the State.

Present PIL has been filed primarily raising alleged public cause of encroachment by certain persons over government land bearing survey No. 75 Harkotaka, Lashkar Gwalior.

It is common knowledge that this Court is flooded with petitions of this nature where individuals come to this Court alleging encroachment on government lands. The Court has to indulge in the process of seeking reply and deciding the matters despite the Apex court in the case of Jagpal Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and ors. (2011) 11 SCC 396 has directed thus:

"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.

24. Let a copy of this order be sent to all Chief Secretaries of all States and Union Territories in India who will ensure strict and prompt compliance of this order and submit compliance reports to this Court from time to time." 

Recently Division Bench of this Court in WP 7865/2021 (Gran Panchayat Dhooma Vs. State of M.P. and ors.) vide order dated 09.06.2021 has held thus:-

"06. In order therefore to provide a State wide solution to this ever persisting problem, we deem it appropriate to direct the Chief Secretary of the State to devise a permanent mechanism, which should be functional in every district of the State where the concerned District Collector should be required to periodically notify for the information of the general public to lodge the complaints / representations with regard to such encroachments with a specially designated Public Land Protection Cell (for short PLPCÂTM) for rural areas. The PLPC should be headed by District Collector and function under his direction and supervision with an officer of the rank of Tehsildar as its Member Secretary and such other Officers as its Members as the Government may deem fit to nominate. The PLPC shall get such complaints / representations enquired into by deputing concerned Sub Divisional Officer / Tehsildar / Naib Tehsildar so as to verify whether or not such encroachments have actually taken place on public land. If the allegations are found to be substantiated, appropriate steps in accordance with law be immediately taken for removal of the encroachments and appropriate penal action be also taken against the trespassers. The complaints / representations received in the PLPC should be decided by passing speaking order, informing the respective complainant / representationist about the action taken. This would obviate the necessity of such complainants / representationists approaching this Court directly by way of public interest litigation. If this permanent mechanism is put in place, this Court would not be required to directly entertain such public interest litigation and would do so only in the event of inaction on the part of the concerned PLPC.

07. The PLPC aforementioned shall also keep in view the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in Jagpal Singh & Others Vs. State of Punjab & Others, (2011) 11 SCC 396 wherein all the State Governments of the country have been directed to prepare scheme for eviction of illegal / unauthorised occupants of the Gram Sabha / Gram Panchayat / Poramboke / Shamlat land which should then be restored to the Gram Sabha / Gram Panchayat for the common use of residents of the village. The said scheme should provide for the speedy eviction of such illegal occupants, after giving them a show cause notice and a brief hearing. The Supreme Court further held therein that long duration of the illegal encroachment / occupation of land or huge expenditure in making construction thereon or political connections of trespassers are no justification for regularising such illegal occupation. Regularisation should be permitted only in exceptional cases where lease has been granted under some government notification e.g. to landless labourers or members of Scheduled Castes / Scheduled Tribes or where there is already a school, hospital, dispensary, shamshan kabristan or other public utility of the like nature on the land. Observations of the Supreme Court in Jagpal Singh (supra) thus leaves no manner of doubt that removal of encroachment on all such land is a rule and regularisation an exception and that too in extremely limited number of cases, which only the Government can do by appropriate notification and no other authority.

08. A copy of this order be forwarded to the Chief Secretary of the State of Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal for issuance of necessary notification for notifying the permanent body designated as Public Land Protection Cell (PLPC) in every District with the District Collector as its head and a Tehsildar as its Member Secretary, apart from other revenue officers as the Members. This should be given due publicity for information of all the citizens that complaint with regard to encroachment over public land in the rural areas can be made to such authorities which shall be responsible for causing an enquiry into such complaint to be made and taking expeditious action for removal of encroachments so as to protect the public land."

In view of above, this Court declines to entertain this petition on merits but issues notice to the State by expanding it's scope seeking explanation of the State and it's functionaries as to why committee nomenclatured as Public Land Protection Cell has not yet been constituted at every district level. The Committee was required to be headed by the Collector of concerned district which was vested with the powers and authority to scrutinize all such complaints of encroachment over government land and take remedial action.

Learned Additional Advocate General for the State is directed to seek instructions in the matter as to whether the State has constituted the said Committee at every district level or not and if not then why ?

Apart from above, it is also required to find out as to whether decision of Apex Court in Jagpal Singh & others (supra) and Division Bench decision in the case of Gram Panchayat Dhooma Vs. State of M.P. (supra) dated 9/6/2021 at the Principal Seat at Jabalpur relates exclusively to the rural area or also covers encroachment in urban area.

Let an affidavit be filed in that respect before the next date of hearing.

Let the case be taken up alongwith W.P.11044/2021 in the same head.

    (Sheel Nagu)                                     (Deepak Kumar Agarwal)

        Judge                                                            Judge

Rajasthan High Court in Ashok Kumar vs. State of Rajasthan [16.02.2021]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR 

 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 626/2020 

1. Ashok Kumar S/o Shri Manak Chand, Aged About 59 Years, By Caste Mundara Maheshwari, Resident Of 14 Gole Baazar, Ward No. 22, Raisinghnagar, District Sri Ganganagar (Rajasthan). 

2. Nakshtra Singh S/o Shri Hamir Singh, Aged About 63 Years, By Caste Kumhar Sikh, Resident Of Ward No. 8, Raisinghnagar, District Sri Ganganagar (Rajasthan). 

 ----Petitioners 

 Versus 

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Deputy Secretary, Department Of Home, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur. 

2. The District Collector, Sri Ganganagar (Rajasthan). 

3. The Director General Of Police, Rajasthan, Jaipur. 

4. The Inspector General Of Police, Range Bikaner (Rajasthan). 

5. The Superintendent Of Police, Sri Ganganagar (Rajasthan). 

6. The Additional Superintendent Of Police (Public Information Officer), Sri Ganganagar (Rajasthan). 

7. The Station House Officer, Police Station Raisinghnagar, District Sri Ganganagar (Rajasthan). 

8. The Municipal Board, Raisinghnagar Through Its Executive Officer. 

9. The Secretary, Municipal Board, Raisinghnagar, District Sri Ganganagar (Rajasthan) 

10. The Project Director, Rajasthan State Road Development And Construction Corporation Limited, 6-U-27, Jawahar Nagar, Sri Ganganagar (Rajasthan). 

11. The Raajasthan State Road Development And Construction Corporation Limited, Setu Bhawan, Opposite Jhalana Doongri, Jaipur (Rajasthan). 

 ----Respondents 

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Trilok Joshi 

For Respondent(s): HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI 

Order 

16/02/2021 

1. In wake of onslaught of COVID-19, abundant caution is being taken while hearing the matters in Court. 

2. The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in D.B. Civil Writ Petition (P.I.L.) No.10819/2018- Jagdish Prasad Meena & Ors.Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. vide order dated 30.01.2019 has directed as under:- 

"In order therefore to provide a pan-Rajasthan solution to this ever persisting problem, we deem it appropriate to direct the Chief Secretary of the State to devise a permanent mechanism, which should be operational in every District of the State where the concerned District Collector should be required to periodically notify for the information of the general public to lodge the complaints/representations with regard to such encroachments with a specially designated Public Land Protection Cell (for short 'PLPC') for rural areas. The PLPC should be headed by District Collector and function under his direction and supervision. The PLPC shall get such complaints/ representations enquired into by deputing concerned Sub Divisional Officer/Tehsildar/Naib Tehsildar so as to verify whether or not such encroachments have actually taken place on such land. If the allegations are found to be substantiated, appropriate steps in accordance with law be immediately taken for removal of the encroachments and appropriate penal action be also taken against the trespassers. The complaints/representations received in the PLPC should be decided by passing speaking order, informing the respective complainant/representationist about the action taken. This would obviate the necessity of such complainants/representationists approaching this Court directly by way of public interest litigation. If this practice is put in place, this Court would not be inclined to directly entertain such public interest litigation or would do so only in the event of in action on the part of the concerned PLPC. 

The PLPC aforementioned shall also keep in view the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in Jagpal Singh & Others Vs. State of Punjab & Others,(2011) 11 SCC 396 wherein all the State Governments of the country were directed that they should prepare schemes for eviction of illegal/unauthorised occupants of the GramSabha/Gram Panchayat/Poramboke/ Shamlat land and the same must be restored to the Gram Sabha/Gram Panchayat for the common use of villagers of the village. The said scheme should provide for the speedy eviction of such illegal occupants, after giving them a show cause notice and a brief hearing. It was further held therein that long duration of the illegal encroachment/occupation of land or huge expenditure in making construction thereon or political connections of trespassers are no justification for regularising such illegal occupation. Regularisation should be permitted only in exceptional cases where lease has been granted under some government notification e.g. to landless labourers or members of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes or where there is already a school, hospital, dispensary, 'shamshan','kabristan' or other public utility of the like nature on the land. Observations of the Supreme Court in Jagpal Singh(supra) thus leaves no manner of doubt that removal of encroachment on all such land is a rule and regularisation an exception and that too in extremely limited number of cases, which only the Government can do by appropriate notification of the government and no other authority. List this matter on 14.03.2019. A copy of this order be sent to the Chief Secretary of the State of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur, who shall ensure compliance of this order and do the needful for creation of Public Land Protection Cell (PLPC) for rural areas." 

3. After arguing for sometime, counsel for the petitioners in the light of the directions contained in the matter of Jagdish Prasad Meena (supra) wants to withdraw this petition with liberty to file representation/application before the Public Land Protection Cell/District Collector-Sri Ganganagar with regard to the encroachments of which reference has been made in the present writ petition. On doing so, the Public Land Protection Cell/District Collector-Sri Ganganagar is directed to decide the said representation/application within a period of three months, keeping in view, the directions contained in the matter of Jagdish Prasad Meena (supra). The stay application as well as all pending applications stand disposed of. 

(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J.

Madhya Pradesh High Court on Rambharat Singh vs. State of MP & Ors. [30.06.2021]

The High Court of Madhya Pradesh 

 WP-11044-2021 

Rambharat Singh vs. State of MP & Ors. 

Dated : 30-06-2021 

Heard through Video Conferencing. 

Shri Siddharth Sharma, learned counsel for petitioner. 

Shri MPS Raghuvanshi, learned Additional Advocate General for respondent/State.

Present PIL has been filed primarily raising alleged public cause of encroachment by certain persons over government land bearing survey No.607 and 608 village Phoolpura Tahsil Morar District Gwalior.

It is common knowledge that this Court is flooded with petitions of this nature where individuals come to this Court alleging encroachment on government lands. The Court has to indulge in the process of seeking reply and deciding the matters despite the Apex court in the case of Jagpal Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and ors. (2011) 11 SCC 396 has directed thus:

"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.

24. Let a copy of this order be sent to all Chief Secretaries of all States and Union Territories in India who will ensure strict and prompt compliance of this order and submit compliance reports to this Court from time to time."

Recently Division Bench of this Court in WP 7865/2021 (Gran Panchayat Dhooma Vs. State of M.P. and Ors.) vide order dated 09.06.2021 has held thus:-

"06. In order therefore to provide a State wide solution to this ever persisting problem, we deem it appropriate to direct the Chief Secretary of the State to devise a permanent mechanism, which should be functional in every district of the State where the concerned District Collector should be required to periodically notify for the information of the general public to lodge the complaints / representations with regard to such encroachments with a specially designated Public Land Protection Cell (for short "PLPC") for rural areas. The PLPC should be headed by District Collector and function under his direction and supervision with an officer of the rank of Tehsildar as its Member Secretary and such other Officers as its Members as the Government may deem fit to nominate. The PLPC shall get such complaints / representations enquired into by deputing concerned Sub Divisional Officer / Tehsildar / Naib Tehsildar so as to verify whether or not such encroachments have actually taken place on public land. If the allegations are found to be substantiated, appropriate steps in accordance with law be immediately taken for removal of the encroachments and appropriate penal action be also taken against the trespassers. The complaints / representations received in the PLPC should be decided by passing speaking order, informing the respective complainant / representationist about the action taken. This would obviate the necessity of such complainants / representationists approaching this Court directly by way of public interest litigation. If this permanent mechanism is put in place, this Court would not be required to directly entertain such public interest litigation and would do so only in the event of inaction on the part of the concerned PLPC.

07. The PLPC aforementioned shall also keep in view the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in Jagpal Singh & Others Vs. State of Punjab & Others, (2011) 11 SCC 396 wherein all the State Governments of the country have been directed to prepare scheme for eviction of illegal / unauthorised occupants of the Gram Sabha / Gram Panchayat / Poramboke / Shamlat land which should then be restored to the Gram Sabha / Gram Panchayat for the common use of residents of the village. The said scheme should provide for the speedy eviction of such illegal occupants, after giving them a show cause notice and a brief hearing. The Supreme Court further held therein that long duration of the illegal encroachment / occupation of land or huge expenditure in making construction thereon or political connections of trespassers are no justification for regularising such illegal occupation. Regularisation should be permitted only in exceptional cases where lease has been granted under some government notification e.g. to landless labourers or members of Scheduled Castes / Scheduled Tribes or where there is already a school, hospital, dispensary, shamshan, kabristan or other public utility of the like nature on the land. Observations of the Supreme Court in Jagpal Singh (supra) thus leaves no manner of doubt that removal of encroachment on all such land is a rule and regularisation an exception and that too in extremely limited number of cases, which only the Government can do by appropriate notification and no other authority.

08. A copy of this order be forwarded to the Chief Secretary of the State of Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal for issuance of necessary notification for notifying the permanent body designated as Public Land Protection Cell (PLPC) in every District with the District Collector as its head and a Tehsildar as its Member Secretary, apart from other revenue officers as the Members. This should be given due publicity for information of all the citizens that complaint with regard to encroachment over public land in the rural areas can be made to such authorities which shall be responsible for causing an enquiry into such complaint to be made and taking expeditious action for removal of encroachments so as to protect the public land."

In view of above, this Court declines to entertain this petition on merits but issues notice to the State by expanding it's scope seeking explanation of the State and it's functionaries as to why Committee nomenclatured as Public Land Protection Cell has not yet been constituted at every district level. The Committee is required to be headed by the Collector of concerned district who has vested with the powers and authority to scrutinize all such complaints of encroachment over government land and take remedial action.

Learned Additional Advocate General for the State is directed to seek instructions in the matter as to whether the State has constituted the said Committee at every district level or not and if not then why ?

Apart from above, it is also required to find out as to whether decision of Apex Court in Jagpal Singh & others (supra) and Division Bench decision in the case of Gram Panchayat Dhooma Vs. State of M.P. (supra) dated 09.06.2021 at the Principal Seat at Jabalpur relates exclusively to the rural area or also covers encroachment in urban area.

Let an affidavit be filed in that respect before the next date of hearing. List in the last week of July, 2021.

Copy of this order be supplied to Shri MPS Raghuvanshi, learned Additional Advocate General for State free of cost. 

                    (SHEEL NAGU)                                         (DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL)

                          JUDGE                                                                      JUDGE

MP High Court in Gram Panchayat Dhooma vs. State of MP [09.06.2021]

[This is a landmark decision by the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh. Relying on the Jagpal Singh case, it directed the state's Chief Secretary to constitute Public Land Protection Cells to solve the ever-persisting problem of encroachments.]

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

Writ Petition No. 7865 / 2021 (PIL)

Gram Panchayat Dhooma vs. State of MP

Writ Petition No. 8517 / 2021 (PIL)

Raghvendra Pratap Singh vs. State of MP

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Rafiq,

Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sujoy Paul, Judge

Presence: Mr. Shitala Prasad Tripathi, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Brahmadatt Singh, Government Advocate for the State in W.P.No. 7865/2021. 

Mr. Kamal Bhan Vishwakarma, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Ashish Anand Bernard, Dy. Advocate General for the State in W.P.No. 8517/2021. 

O R D E R (Oral)

(09.06.2021) 

Per: Mohammad Rafiq, Chief Justice: 

01. These two Writ Petitions have been filed as Public Interest Litigation with a similar grievance about the encroachment on the public land seeking a direction to the respondent – State authorities to remove such encroachment and restore the public land to its original position. 

02. W.P.No. 7865/2021 (PIL) has been filed by the Gram Panchayat Dhooma through its Sarpanch Smt. Gulsam Bai, with regard to land of Khasra No. 491 Area 0.78 hectare; Khasra No. 492/1 Area 3.22 hectare, Khasra No. 90 area 9.30 hectare, Khasra No. 410/1 area 0.82 hectare, Khasra No. 411 area 0.82 hectare, Khasra No. 499/4 area 0.17 hectare, Khasra No. 469 area 0.02 hectare, Khasra No. 464 area 0.17 hectare, Khasra No. 670 area 0.20 hectare, Khasra No. 383 area 0.30 hectare, Khasra No. 50 area 0.30 hectare and Khasra No. 141 area 9.9 hectare situated at Resham Kendra Village Dhooma, Patwari Halka No. 15, R.N.M. Dhooma, Tehsil Lakhnadoon, District Seoni (M.P.). 

03. According to the petitioner all the aforementioned parcels of the land fall within the jurisdiction of Gram Panchayat Dhooma. Since these plots of land are appurtenant to National Highway No.7 and are having commercial utility, several persons from outside villages have raised Kachcha houses / huts thereupon and started living there. Few local persons have also made illegal encroachment and constructions by use of stones and moram. The Gram Panchayat periodically takes the steps to remove the encroachment but the trespassers again occupied the land. Gram Panahcyat passed a resolution on 4/10/2018 by unanimous vote for removing these encroachments and submitted application before respondent No.2 – Collector, Seoni and respondent No.3 – Sub-Divisional Officer, Lakhnadon requesting them to remove the encroachments from the public land, but no action has been taken. In these circumstances, the Gram Panchayat by resolution dated 4/6/2019 authorised the Sarpanch to file the present Public Interest Litigation. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Jagpal Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and others reported in (2011) 11 SCC 396 and it was argued that the State Government has in compliance of this judgment of the Supreme Court on 18/3/2011 issued a Circular to all the Divisional Commissioner, Commissioner Land Records and Settlement and all the Collectors for removal of illegal encroachments from the public land and restore possession of all such public land to the Gram Panchayat but this Circular has not been effectively implemented. 

04. W.P.No. 8517/2021 (PIL) has been filed by Raghvendra Pratap Singh, resident of Village & Post Ganjan Tehsil Rampur Baghelan, District Satna. It is stated therein that the petitioner is aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the State authorities in not being able to remove the encroachments over the Government land bearing Khasra No. 458 and 459, situated at Village Ganjan Tehsil Rampur Baghelan, District Satna. The land in question has been recorded as the land of pond in revenue record. Water of such pond is being used by the villagers for the last more than 50 years for their household purposes as well as for their cattle. The land has always been recorded as pond in the revenue records of the Government but now large number of encroachments have come up on the land. Some of the encroachers have constructed boundary walls and and houses. These people have protection of political persons and, therefore, the District Administration is not taking any interest in removal of their encroachments. It is argued that the petitioner submitted a representation on 17/11/2020 and thereafter another representation on 11/1/2021 to the Collector, Satna, with the request that the land of pond / talab should be freed from the trespassers and all the encroachments should be removed. However, no action has been taken by the authorities. 

05. This Court is inundated with large number of writ petitions, styled as public interest litigation, from almost all the Districts of the State, with allegations of encroachment over the 'nistar land' / 'charnoi' / 'gocher' / 'pasture land' / land of ‘pond’, ‘talab’/ 'river' / 'river bed' / 'public way' / 'shamshan' / 'kabristan' etc. In all such petitions, common allegation is that despite repeated complaints / representations to the concerned revenue officers, no steps are taken by them to remove the encroachment. This results in number of writ petitions being filed by the complainants / representationists before this Court. This Court has been passing orders in such matters requiring the respective District Collectors and other revenue authorities to examine the factual content of the allegations and take steps to remove the encroachments so as to secure such land. 

06. In order therefore to provide a State wide solution to this ever persisting problem, we deem it appropriate to direct the Chief Secretary of the State to devise a permanent mechanism, which should be functional in every district of the State where the concerned District Collector should be required to periodically notify for the information of the general public to lodge the complaints / representations with regard to such encroachments with a specially designated Public Land Protection Cell (for short ‘PLPC’) for rural areas. The PLPC should be headed by District Collector and function under his direction and supervision with an officer of the rank of Tehsildar as its Member Secretary and such other Officers as its Members as the Government may deem fit to nominate. The PLPC shall get such complaints / representations enquired into by deputing concerned Sub Divisional Officer / Tehsildar / Naib Tehsildar so as to verify whether or not such encroachments have actually taken place on public land. If the allegations are found to be substantiated, appropriate steps in accordance with law be immediately taken for removal of the encroachments and appropriate penal action be also taken against the trespassers. The complaints / representations received in the PLPC should be decided by passing speaking order, informing the respective complainant / representationist about the action taken. This would obviate the necessity of such complainants / representationists approaching this Court directly by way of public interest litigation. If this permanent mechanism is put in place, this Court would not be required to directly entertain such public interest litigation and would do so only in the event of inaction on the part of the concerned PLPC. 

07. The PLPC aforementioned shall also keep in view the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in Jagpal Singh & Others Vs. State of Punjab & Others, (2011) 11 SCC 396 wherein all the State Governments of the country have been directed to prepare scheme for eviction of illegal / unauthorised occupants of the Gram Sabha / Gram Panchayat / Poramboke / Shamlat land which should then be restored to the Gram Sabha / Gram Panchayat for the common use of residents of the village. The said scheme should provide for the speedy eviction of such illegal occupants, after giving them a show cause notice and a brief hearing. The Supreme Court further held therein that long duration of the illegal encroachment / occupation of land or huge expenditure in making construction thereon or political connections of trespassers are no justification for regularising such illegal occupation. Regularisation should be permitted only in exceptional cases where lease has been granted under some government notification e.g. to landless labourers or members of Scheduled Castes / Scheduled Tribes or where there is already a school, hospital, dispensary, ‘shamshan’, ‘kabristan’ or other public utility of the like nature on the land. Observations of the Supreme Court in Jagpal Singh (supra) thus leaves no manner of doubt that removal of encroachment on all such land is a rule and regularisation an exception and that too in extremely limited number of cases, which only the Government can do by appropriate notification and no other authority. 

08. A copy of this order be forwarded to the Chief Secretary of the State of Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal for issuance of necessary notification for notifying the permanent body designated as Public Land Protection Cell (PLPC) in every District with the District Collector as its head and a Tehsildar as its Member Secretary, apart from other revenue officers as the Members. This should be given due publicity for information of all the citizens that complaint with regard to encroachment over public land in the rural areas can be made to such authorities which shall be responsible for causing an enquiry into such complaint to be made and taking expeditious action for removal of encroachments so as to protect the public land. 

09. With the aforesaid both the writ petitions stand disposed of. 

10. A copy of this order be placed in the record of W.P.No.8517/2021

Jagdish Firoda & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. [16.02.2021]

HIGH COURT of JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR 

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1962/2021

1. Jagdish Firoda S/o Shri Ramdev, aged about 54 Years, By Caste Jat, Resident of Village Bayala, Tehsil Mundwa, District Nagaur

2. Ganpat Ram S/o Shri Lakharam, aged about 41 Years, By Caste Jat, Resident of Village Chimrani, Tehsil Mundwa, District Nagaur (Rajasthan)

----Petitioners 

Versus

1. State of Rajasthan through Principal Secretary to the Government, Revenue Department, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur

2. Divisional Commissioner, Ajmer

3. District Collector, Nagaur

4. Tehsildar Mundwa, District Nagaur

----Respondents 

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nimbaram Choudhary.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA 

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR VYAS 

Order 

16/02/2021

1. This petition is filed by the petitioners seeking directions to the respondents for removal of encroachment on the land comprising of Khasra No.74 of Village Chimrani, Teshil and District Nagaur, which is alleged to be reserved as 'Gair-Mumkin Agore' and forms part of catchment area of water body 'Imaratiya Nada'.

2. This Court in the matter of 'Gulab Kothari vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.' [D.B.Civil Writ (PIL) No.1554/04], vide order dated 12.1.17, has already issued directions to the State Authorities to take effective steps for conservation and preservation of natural resources i.e. rivers, other water bodies and catchment area. Further, the State Authorities have been directed to undertake a drive to remove all encroachments made over the natural resources operating thereon and restore such natural resources by taking appropriate action.

3. Indisputably, Section 16 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act 1955 (for short "the Act of 1955"), puts restriction on khatedari right being accrued in respect of the land covered by the water or the land acquired or held for a public purpose or a work of public utility. In "Abdul Rahman v. State" 2005 RRT 59, a Bench of this court has issued direction to the State Government to remove encroachment in the catchment area of the water bodies.

4. In D.B.C. Writ Petition (PIL) No.10819/18 "Jagdish Prasad Meena & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.", a Bench of this Court at Jaipur with a view to provide a pan-Rajasthan solution for persisting problem of encroachment on the land of public way, johar paitan, river bed etc. issued directions as under: -

"In order therefore to provide a pan-Rajasthan solution to this ever persisting problem, we deem it appropriate to direct the Chief Secretary of the State to devise a permanent mechanism, which should be operational in every District of the State where the concerned District Collector should be required to periodically notify for the information of the general public to lodge the complaints/representations with regard to such encroachments with a specially designated Public Land Protection Cell (for short 'PLPC') for rural areas. The PLPC should be head by District Collector and function under his direction and supervision. The PLPC shall get such complaints/representations enquired into by deputing concerned Sub Divisional Officer/Tehsildar/Naib Tehsildar so as to verity whether or not such encroachments have actually taken place on such land. If the allegations are found to be substantiated, appropriate steps in accordance with law be immediately taken for removal of the encroachments and appropriate penal action be also taken against the trespassers. The complaints/representations received in the PLPC should be decided by passing speaking order, informing the respective complainant/ representationist about the action taken. This would obviate the necessity of such complainants/representationists approaching this Court directly by way of public interest litigation. If this practice is put in place, this Court would not be inclined to directly entertain such public interest litigation or would do so only in the event of inaction on the part of the concerned PLPC .

The PLPC aforementioned shall also keep in view the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in Jagpal Singh & Others vs. State of Punjab & Others, (2011) 11 SCC 396 wherein all the State Governments of the country were directed that they should prepare schemes for eviction of illegal/unauthorised occupants of the Gram Sabha/Gram Panchayat/Poramboke/ Shamlat land and the same must be restored to the Gram Sabha/Gram Panchayat for the common use of villagers of the village. The said scheme should provide for the speedy eviction of illegal occupants, after giving them a show cause notice and a brief hearing. It was further held therein that long duration of the illegal encroachment/occupation of land or huge expenditure in making construction thereon or political connections of trespassers are no justification for regularising such illegal occupation. Regularisation should be permitted only in exceptional cases where lease has been granted under some government notification .e.g. to landless labourers or members of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes or where there is already a school, hospital, dispensary, 'shamshan', 'kabristan' or other public utility of the like nature on the land.

Observations of the Supreme Court in Jagpal Singh (supra) thus leave no manner of doubt that removal of encroachment on all such land is a rule and regularisation an exception and that too in extremely limited number of cases, which only the Government can do by appropriate notification of the government and no other authority."

5. In view of the directions already issued by this Court as aforesaid, no further directions are required to be issued in the instant case. The petitioners may approach the Public Land Protection Cell (PLPC) of District Nagaur constituted pursuant to the directions of this Court in Jagdish Prasad Meena's case (supra). Needless to say that the representation to be made by the petitioners shall be considered by the PLPC in accordance with law.

6. The petition stands disposed of with the observation as above.

Adu Ram & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. [19.02.2021]

HIGH COURT of JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR 

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2840/2021

1. Adu Ram S/o Shri Harakha Ram, aged about 33 Years, B/c Jat, R/o Village Machro Ki Dhani, Mandawla, Tehsil Sindhari, District Barmer (Raj.)

2. Deraj Ram S/o Shri Bhera Ram, aged about 33 Years, B/c Jat, R/o Village Sirola Nada, Kadanadi, Tehsil Sindhari, District Barmer (Raj.)

----Petitioners 

Versus

1. State of Rajasthan through the Secretary, Department of Revenue, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)

2. District Collector, Barmer (Raj.)

3. Sub Divisional Office, Sindhari, District Barmer (Raj.)

4. Tehsildar, Sindhari, District Barmer (Raj.)

5. Secretary, Gram Panchayat Kadanadi, Panchayat Samiti Sindhari, District Barmer (Raj.)

----Respondents 

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. M.R. Choudhary.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA 

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR VYAS 

Order 

19/02/2021 

Heard.

By way of this writ petition, the petitioners have raised grievance regarding land comprising Khasra Nos.240 and 241 of revenue village Laxmanpura, Patwar Circle Kada Nadi, Teshil Sindhari, District Barmer, categorized as "Nadi" and "Agore" land in the revenue record, which has been put to use as cremation ground.

In D.B. Civil Writ Petition (PIL) No.10819/18 : Jagdish Prasad Meena & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., a Bench of this Court at Jaipur with a view to provide a pan-Rajasthan solution for persisting problem of encroachment on the land of public way, johar paitan, 'Nadi', river bed etc. issued directions as under: -

"In order therefore to provide a pan-Rajasthan solution to this ever persisting problem, we deem it appropriate to direct the Chief Secretary of the State to devise a permanent mechanism, which should be operational in every District of the State where the concerned District Collector should be required to periodically notify for the information of the general public to lodge the complaints/representations with regard to such encroachments with a specially designated Public Land Protection Cell (for short 'PLPC') for rural areas. The PLPC should be head by District Collector and function under his direction and supervision. The PLPC shall get such complaints/representations enquired into by deputing concerned Sub Divisional Officer/Tehsildar/Naib Tehsildar so as to verity whether or not such encroachments have actually taken place on such land. If the allegations are found to be substantiated, appropriate steps in accordance with law be immediately taken for removal of the encroachments and appropriate penal action be also taken against the trespassers. The complaints/representations received in the PLPC should be decided by passing speaking order, informing the respective complainant/ representationist about the action taken. This would obviate the necessity of such complainants/representationists approaching this Court directly by way of public interest litigation. If this practice is put in place, this Court would not be inclined to directly entertain such public interest litigation or would do so only in the event of inaction on the part of the concerned PLPC .

The PLPC aforementioned shall also keep in view the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in Jagpal Singh & Others vs. State of Punjab & Others, (2011) 11 SCC 396 wherein all the State Governments of the country were directed that they should prepare schemes for eviction of illegal/unauthorised occupants of the Gram Sabha/Gram Panchayat/Poramboke/ Shamlat land and the same must be restored to the Gram Sabha/Gram Panchayat for the common use of villagers of the village. The said scheme should provide for the speedy eviction of illegal occupants, after giving them a show cause notice and a brief hearing. It was further held therein that long duration of the illegal encroachment/occupation of land or huge expenditure in making construction thereon or political connections of trespassers are no justification for regularising such illegal occupation. Regularisation should be permitted only in exceptional cases where lease has been granted under some government notification .e.g. to landless labourers or members of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes or where there is already a school, hospital, dispensary, 'shamshan', 'kabristan' or other public utility of the like nature on the land.

Observations of the Supreme Court in Jagpal Singh (supra) thus leave no manner of doubt that removal of encroachment on all such land is a rule and regularisation an exception and that too in extremely limited number of cases, which only the Government can do by appropriate notification of the government and no other authority."

The grievances raised by the petitioners in the writ petition can be looked into by the Public Land Protection Committee constituted at District Level pursuant to order passed by this Court in the case of Jagdish Meena (supra).

It is open for the petitioners to make representation to the Public Land Protection Cell (PLPC) of District Barmer constituted pursuant to the directions of this Court in Jagdish Prasad Meena's case (supra), which is expected to be dealt with in accordance with law.

The petition stands disposed of with the observation as above.

                (RAMESHWAR VYAS),J                 (SANGEET LODHA),J

Khushal Singla & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. [02.11.2020]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR 

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11157/2020

1. Khushal Singla S/o Shri Veer Chand, Aged About 27 Years, B/c Agarwal, R/o Ward No. 12, Sadul Shahar, District Sriganganagar.
2. Virendra Kumar S/o Shri Hansraj Goyal, Aged About 57 Years, R/o Ward No. 9, Sadul Shahar, District Sriganganagar.
3. Narendra Kumar S/o Shri Amarnath, Aged About 40 Years, B/c Agarwal, R/o Ward No. 9, Sadul Shahar, District Sriganganagar.

----Petitioners 

Versus

1. State of Rajasthan, through Secretary, Urban Development And Housing Department, Food Building, Secretariat, Jaipur - 302005
2. The Executive Officer, Municipal Council, Sadul Shahar, District Sriganganagar.
3. The District Collector, Sriganganagar.
4. The Tehsildar, Sadul Sahar. 

----Respondents 

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abhinav Jain 

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA 

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR VYAS 

Order 

02/11/2020

1. By way of this writ petition, the petitioners are seeking directions to remove the encroachments made over the land forming part of public way & roads and no permission be granted for raising commercial buildings in the residential colonies in Sadul Sahar, District Sri Ganganagar.

2. In Gulab Kothari vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.(D.B.C.Writ Petition No.1554/04), this Court while dealing with the issue with regard to encroachments on public road and footpath, observed:

"146. It is well settled that the footpaths and public roads are meant for convenience of public at large and no private person can be allowed to make unauthorised use of the same for personal use. As a matter of fact, every citizen has right to pass over the footpaths and public ways and custody thereof with the State and the Local Authorities is in realm of public trust and therefore, what to say of private individuals even, the State Government and Local Authorities are yoked under an inhibition not to put any structure on footpaths and public ways, which is not necessary for regulating and maintaining the user thereof. Every inch of the land forming part of footpaths and public ways has to be preserved and maintained meticulously and therefore, the State Government and the Local Authorities, who are under an obligation to check growth of unauthorised encroachment made by unscrupulous persons on footpaths and public ways and remove the same, cannot shirk from their responsibility to take the appropriate measures in this regard.

147. This Court takes judicial notice of the fact that the tendency to occupy unauthorisedly the land forming part of footpaths and public ways, is rampant in various cities of the State and one hardly finds enough space on the footpaths and public ways which is creating numerous traffic hazards and the pedestrians are compelled to move in the midst of vehicular traffic endangering their life. We are constraint to observe that this tendency to encroach upon the footpaths and public ways amongst the unscrupulous citizens is flourishing because of deleterious inaction and tacit support of the persons at the helm of affairs in the local authorities.

148. To conclude, it is high time that the menace of encroachment and unauthorised construction over the footpath and public way is viewed seriously and dealt with strictly."

3. In D.B.C.Writ Petition (PIL) No.10819/18 "Jagdish Prasad Meena & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.", a Bench of this Court at Jaipur with a view to provide a pan-Rajasthan solution for persisting problem of encroachment on the land of public way, johar paitan, river bed etc., issued directions as under:

" In order therefore to provide a pan-Rajasthan solution to this ever persisting problem, we deem it appropriate to direct the Chief Secretary of the State to devise a permanent mechanism, which should be operational in every District of the State where the concerned District Collector should be required to periodically notify for the information of the general public to lodge the complaints/representations with regard to such encroachments with a specially designated Public Land Protection Cell (for short 'PLPC') for rural areas. The PLPC should be head by District Collector and function under his direction and supervision. The PLPC shall get such complaints/representations enquired into by deputing concerned Sub Divisional Officer/Tehsildar/Naib Tehsildar so as to verity whether or not such encroachments have actually taken place on such land. If the allegations are found to be substantiated, appropriate steps in accordance with law be immediately taken for removal of the encroachments and appropriate penal action be also taken against the trespassers. The complaints/representations received in the PLPC should be decided by passing speaking order, informing the respective complainant/representationist about the action taken. This would obviate the necessity of such complainants/representationists approaching this Court directly by way of public interest litigation. If this practice is put in place, this Court would not be inclined to directly entertain such public interest litigation or would do so only in the event of inaction on the part of the concerned PLPC.

The PLPC aforementioned shall also keep in view the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in Jagpal Singh & Others vs. State of Punjab & Others, (2011) 11 SCC 396 wherein all the State Governments of the country were directed that they should prepare schemes for eviction of illegal/unauthorised occupants of the Gram Sabha/Gram Panchayat/Poramboke/Shamlat land and the same must be restored to the Gram Sabha/Gram Panchayat for the common use of villagers of the village. The said scheme should provide for the speedy eviction of illegal occupants, after giving them a show cause notice and a brief hearing. It was further held therein that long duration of the illegal encroachment/occupation of land or huge expenditure in making construction thereon or political connections of trespassers are no justification for regularising such illegal occupation. Regularisation should be permitted only in exceptional cases where lease has been granted under some government notification .e.g. to landless labourers or members of Scheduled (4 of 4) [CW-11157/2020] Castes/Scheduled Tribes or where there is already a school, hospital, dispensary, 'shamshan', 'kabristan' or other public utility of the like nature on the land.

Observations of the Supreme Court in Jagpal Singh (supra) thus leave no manner of doubt that removal of encroachment on all such land is a rule and regularisation an exception and that too in extremely limited number of cases, which only the Government can do by appropriate notification of the government and no other authority."

 

4. In view of the directions already issued by this Court as aforesaid, no further directions are required to be issued in the instant case. The petitioners may approach the Public Land Protection Cell (PLPC) of District Sri Ganganagar constituted pursuant to the directions of this Court in Jagdish Prasad Meena's case (supra). Needless to say that the representation to be made by the petitioners shall be considered by the PLPC in accordance with law and the encroachment on the land forming part of the road or the public area is found, the same shall be removed expeditiously.

5. The petition stands disposed of with the observation as above. 

                (RAMESHWAR VYAS),J                         (SANGEET LODHA),J