Chhattisgarh High Court: High time that state wakes up and takes strong decisions against encroachments [31.01.2022]

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR 

 Writ Petition (C) No. 542 of 2022 

1. Dineshwar Prasad Mehta S/o Late Shri Jailal Mehta Aged About 58 Years R/o Village Balgikhar, Ward No. 15, Vidhyalaya Gali, Police Station Banki Mogra, Tahsil Darri, District Korba Chhattisgarh. 

 ---Petitioner(s) 

Versus 

1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department of Revenue Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur , District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 

2. State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Urban Administration and Development Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, CG. 

3. Collector Korba District Korba Chhattisgarh. 

4. Municipal Corporation Korba Through Its Commissioner District Korba,CG. 

5. Sanjay Pandey S/o Shri Babulal Pandey Aged About 55 Years 

6. Praveen Pandey S/o Shri Babulal Pandey Aged About 50 Years Respondents No.5 & 6 are R/o House No. 37, M.I.G. 1, M.P. Nagar Extension Kusabadi, Tehsil and District Korba Chhattisgarh.

---Respondents 

For Petitioner : Shri Sarfaraz Khan, Advocate. 

For State : Ms. Samiksha Gupta, Panel Lawyer. 

For Respondent 4 : Shri Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate. 

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy 

Order on Board 

31.01.2022

1. The grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition is the alleged illegal encroachment and subsequent illegal plotting being done on government land that situates at Khasra No.44/4 and 44/8 at village Lata, Tehsil Katghora, District Korba.

2. The counsel for the petitioner submits that on a complaint made by the petitioner, the respondents have already initiated action and an order was passed as early as on 10.09.2018, however, till date there has been no further action initiated by the respondents in terms of the order dated 10.09.2018.

3. Today when the matter is taken up for hearing, the counsel appearing for the Municipal Corporation submits that the Municipal Corporation shall ensure that appropriate proceedings and steps are taken in accordance with law after hearing all the parties within a stipulated period at the earliest.

4. The same view has been expressed by the State counsel as well.

5. Of late, this court has been receiving various writ petitions of different areas with similar, if not identical, relief sought for i.e. the government land in the neighboring of the petitioner's getting encroached upon by illegal means and thereafter constructions are being carried out on government land and thereafter those government lands are being plotted and sold to private agencies thereby further encroachments are being permitted.

6. The Supreme Court in case of Jagpal Singh & Others Vs. State of Punjab and Others, 2011 (11) SCC 396 has already come down heavily upon the government agencies particularly so far as illegal encroachment is concerned, wherein in paragraph 23 the Supreme Court in a very categorical terms have 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."

7. Based upon the said directives issued by the Supreme Court in the said judgment, the State of Chhattisgarh as well has issued certain guidelines on this issue. However, it seems that the judgment and directions of Supreme Court and the guidelines framed by the State of Chhattisgarh are all being given a go bye by the illegal encroachers who seem to be in connivance with the government officials, or else they could not have been permitted to firstly encroach upon the government land and secondly raise huge constructions on the government land.

8. The guidelines issued by the State Govt. in this regard is also enclosed along with the writ petition as Annexure P/5 dated 13.03.2011 wherein a mechanism itself has been envisaged to be resorted to in the given factual backdrop.

9. It is high time that the respondents wake up from their slumber and take an appropriate strong decisions in order to protect the government land from being misused by such unscrupulous persons.

10. Given the fact that there is already a judgment of Supreme Court and which has also been accepted by the State of Chhattisgarh by the issuance of the guidelines dated 13.03.2011, it goes without saying that the respondents are bound to take appropriate steps and actions in accordance with directives of the Supreme Court as also the guidelines of the State Government.

11. The writ petition therefore at this juncture stands disposed of directing the respondents No.3&4 to take all necessary steps and actions so far as illegal encroachment upon government lands are concerned, more particularly the order of the respondent No.4 dated 10.09.2018 in respect of the illegal encroachment in Khasra No.44/4 and 44/8 at village Lata, Tehsil Katghora, District Korba.

12. It is expected that the respondents shall initiate appropriate action strictly in accordance with law immediately within a period of 45 days and the entire proceedings shall be concluded within an outer limit of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

Chhattisgarh HC in Ravi Kumar Yadav vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. [14.09.2021]

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR 

Order Sheet 

WPPIL No. 33 of 2021 

Ravi  Kumar  Yadav  S/o  Ramkhilawan  Yadav  Aged  About  32  Years  R/o Lalpur  ,  Police  Station  Balodabazar,  Tehsil  Bhatapara  ,  District  Balodabazar Bhatapara. 

----  Petitioner 

Versus 

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Development Of Urban Administration And  Development,  Mantralay,  Mahanadi  Bhawan,  Naya Raipur 

2. State  Of Chhattisgarh  Through The Secretary  Department  Of  Revenue  And Disaster  Management  Mantralay  Mahanadi  Bhawan,  Naya  Raipur 

3. The  Collector  Balodabazar  District  Bhatapara 

4. Sub  Divisional  Officer  (Revenue) Tehsil Paniyan, District Bhatapara. 

5. The  Tehsildar  Tehsil  Paniyan,  District  Bhatapara 

6. Municipal Corporation Balodabazar, Through The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Balodabazar  District  Bhatapara  Chhattisgarh. 

7. Dhanadhar S/o Shri Mohan Yadu Aged About 35 Years R/o Lalpur, Tehsil Bhatapara, District Balodabazar Chhattisgarh. 

8. Karan  S/o  Shri  Gangadalyal  Yadu  Aged  About  62  Years  R/o  Lalpur,  Tehsil Bhatapara  ,  District  Balodabazar  Chhattisgarh. 9. Kartik  Yadav  (Minor)  S/o  Shri  Shrawan  Kumar  Yadav  Aged  About  5  Years Guardian  Shri  Vishnu  Prasad  Yadav  (Grand  Father  Of  Kartik  Yadav)  ,  S/o Late  Rati  Ram  Yadav  ,  Aged  About  66  Years,  R/o  Lalpur ,  Tehsil  Bhatapara  , District  Balodabazar  Chhattisgarh. 

----  Respondents

Proceedings through Video Conferencing 

29/7/2021 

Ms. Shivali Dubey, counsel for the petitioner. 

 Mr. Sudeep Agrawal, Dy.A.G. for the State. 

Heard. 

I.A. No.03/2021, application for amendment of the writ petition is considered and allowed. Let necessary incorporation be made within a week, thereafter, petitioner shall pay process fee for service of notice on newly added respondent.

Learned State counsel submits that the subject tank is a private tank.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the private respondents are selling the land recorded as tank. She would further submit that irrespective of the issue of ownership, land under water cannot be sold for any other purpose. She would refer to the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Jagpal Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Ors. {(2011) 11 SCC 396}.

Let the matter be posted for consideration in the week commencing 06.9.2021.

In the meanwhile, parties shall maintain status quo, in respect of possession and there shall be no alienation of any part of the land covered within the khasra number recorded as tank. 

                    (Prashant Kumar Mishra)                                                 (Narendra Kumar Vyas) 

                         Acting Chief Justice                                                                 Judge

__________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________

D.B.:-    Hon'ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava    

Hon'ble Smt. Justice Vimla Singh Kapoor

Order On Board

14/09/2021

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing certain records we find that case is regarding dispute of title over the pond which is subject matter of dispute in the writ petition.

2. State's records contain not only revenue records in which private person's name is on record but also there are certain records in which the land is being used for nistari purposes by the villagers.  The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that land is a nistari land but wrongly recorded in the name of private persons.  Therefore, they should be removed and pond be set free.

3. In our opinion, it can be decided only after going through the entire records, history with regard to creation and abolition, interest and title of the pond which pertains to abolition of proprietary rights of ex-malguzar.  The case involves disputed facts and factual enquiry which would require not only minute scrutiny of revenue records but may also require oral evidence. The Land Revenue Code provides mechanism and remedy where complaint is made to revenue authority that the pond was being used as nistari purposes and used exclusively by the villagers, but wrongly recorded in the ownership of private persons.

4. Therefore, we are of the opinion that this writ petition should be disposed off with the direction to the Collector, Balodabazar to entrust the matter for due enquiry by a competent authority to deal with complaints regarding encroachment on nistari pond of the village.  The competent authority shall institute proceedings by issuing due notice not only to the villagers but also to its recorded owner. The enquiry should be made within an outer limit of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order by the Collector.  The security amount of Rs.5,000/- be refunded and appropriate records of refund be attached with the records of the present case.The petition is accordingly disposed off.             

                                        Sd/-                                                                     Sd/-           

                  (Manindra Mohan Shrivastava)                                (Vimla Singh Kapoor)            

                                      Judge                                                                  Judge

Chhattisgarh HC in Purna Prakash Jha & Ors. vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. [01.05.2019]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

WPC Nos. 2682 and 6750 of 2011

Decided On: 01.05.2019

Purna Prakash Jha and Ors.

Vs.

State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Goutam Bhaduri, J.

Counsels:

For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: B.P. Sharma and B.D. Guru, Advocates

For Respondents/Defendant: Alok Bakshi, Addl. A.G., Avinash Singh, Ashish Surana, Panel Lawyers, H.B. Agrawal, Sr. Adv. and Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate

ORDER

Goutam Bhaduri, J.

1. Heard.

2. In both these writ petitions the common question of facts & law are involved therefore, they are being heard and decided together by this common order.

WPC No. 2682 of 2011

3. WPC No. 2682/2011 is filed by Dr. Purn Prakash Jha. It is contended that the petitioner is the corporator of Veer Shivaji Ward No. 7, Khamtarai, Raipur (C.G.). It is further contended that the State authorities have started a program in the name of upgradation of tank under the scheme "Humare Sarovar Humare Dharohar". It is stated that such scheme was implemented in respect of one pond named as Chathva Talab, Raipur, but instead of improving the condition of pond, the construction was started to reduce area of the pond by filling it. It is further contended that such construction/raising of superstructure by filling up of the pond is completely illegal and contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Jagpal Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors. ({2011} 11 SCC 396). It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that though the slogan was for the improvement of the pond was highlighted but to the contrary the construction was carried out to destroy the pond. Therefore, the prayer is made that the construction of any superstructure on the bank of Chathva Talab to reduce its area would be illegal as it would amount to destroy the pond.

WPC No. 6750 of 2011

4. Likewise in WPC No. 6750 of 2011, filed by Rakesh Diwar with the averments that one pond named as Sarju Bandha Talab is situated at Tikrapara, Patwari Halka No. 114, the pond was being used by the residents of the area for the time immemorial. The Khasra number of the land over which the pond exists is bearing Khasra No. 125 and has been demarcated as Nistar talab. It is stated that in the embankment of the said pond, the construction was made which tantamounts to reduction of area of pond and will eventually diminish the pond. It is stated that such an act is contrary to the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court to destroy the water body. The prayer is made that the construction made over the area of the pond may be demolished and the pond be restored to its original area which was existing in the revenue records earlier.

5. Shri B.P. Sharma and Shri B.D. Guru, learned counsel for the respective petitioners would submit that the prayer is in conformity with the policy introduced by the State Government styled as which speaks for restoration of the water bodies and much emphasis has been given to make availability of water, as such the ponds may be restored to its original area.

6. Shri Alok Bakshi, learned additional advocate general submits that the State is bound to follow its policy so as to restore the water bodies according to the policy of the government.

7. Shri H.B. Agrawal, Sr. Adv. With Shri Pankaj Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondent Municipal Corporation would submit that the Municipal Corporation has not constructed or raised any superstructure so as to diminish the area of the pond.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents filed along with the petitions.

9. In respect of the pond named as "Chhathva Talab", which is situated over land bearing Khasra Nos. 472 & 475 according to the revenue records of respondent Municipal Corporation, the area is 6.15 acres, which is used by the general public. The Municipal Corporation has relied on order the Tehsildar and stated that it is the stand of the municipal corporation that they would save the pond/water bodies comprised within its municipal limitation. The records show the existence of Chhathva Talab and is situated at Khamtarai, Ward No. 7. According to the order-sheet of the Tehsildar dated 23.03.2011 filed in the case would show that, the said pond is reserved for the use of the general public. Petitioner has filed certain photographs which show that certain plinths have been excavated at the bank of the said pond to raise constructions. This Court initially by an interim order dated 13.05.2011 had stopped any construction to be carried out over or at the bank of said public tank.

10. Likewise WPC No. 6750 of 2011 pertains to one pond named as Sarju Bandha Talab. According to Khasra Panchshala of Mauja Boriyakhurd. The land records filed in the case shows that the land bearing Khasra No. 125 has been shown to be pond and is shown under the water. The total area of the pond is shown as 32.78 acres. The revenue records are not disputed by any of the parties to both the petitions. The map of the land shows that pond situates over Khasra No. 125. The said demarked pond shows that the pond is surrounded by khasra No. 129 and part of Khasra No. 127 & 123. Along with the petition certain photographs have also been filed, which shows that certain constructions were carried out at the bank of pond.

11. With respect to the preservation of the water body, the Supreme Court while adjudicating the case of Jagpal Singh (supra) has laid down the ratio and took a note of the fact that allotment of land of water bodies to private persons and commercial enterprises on payment of some money is illegal, and should be ignored. The Supreme Court further reiterated the law laid down in the case of in Hinch Lal Tiwari vs. Kamala Devi, AIR 2001 SC 3215 (followed by the Madras High Court in L. Krishnan vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 2005(4) CTC 1 Madras) held that land recorded as a pond must not be allowed to be allotted to anybody for construction of a house or any allied purpose. The Court further ordered that if the land is illegally occupied, the same shall be vacated. The Supreme Court further went to observe that our ancestors were not fools as they knew that in certain years there may be droughts or water shortages for some or other reason, and water would also be required for cattle to drink and bathe in etc. Therefore, they built a pond attached to every village, a tank attached to every temple, etc. These were their traditional rain water harvesting methods, which served them for thousands of years. It was also observed that over the last few decades, however, most of these ponds in our country have been filled with earth and built upon by greedy people, thus destroying their original character, therefore, this has contributed to the water shortages in the country. Further it was held that many ponds are auctioned off at throw away prices to businessmen for fisheries in collusion with authorities/Gram Panchayat officials, and even this money collected from these so called auctions are not used for the common benefit of the villagers but misappropriated. A direction therefore, was given to the State Government that they should prepare schemes for eviction of illegal/unauthorized occupants from the ponds.

12. The relevant part of observation made in the matter of Jagpal Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors. {AIR 2011 SC 1123} and similar principle as laid down in the matter of Meghwal Samaj Shiksha Samiti Vs. Lakh Singh & Ors. {2011 AIR (SCW) 3769} are reproduced herein below. In Jagpal Singh (supra) it is held thus in paragraphs 16, 17, 18, 19 & 22, which are reproduced hereunder:-

"16. The present is a case of land recorded as a village pond. This Court in Hinch Lal Tiwari vs. Kamala Devi. MANU/SC/0410/2001 : AIR 2001 SC 3215 (followed by the Madras High Court in L. Krishnan vs. State of Tamil Nadu. MANU/TN/0660/2005 : 2005(4) CTC 1 Madras) held that land recorded as a pond must not be allowed to be allotted to anybody for construction of a house or any allied purpose. The Court ordered the respondents to vacate the land they had illegally occupied, after taking away the material of the house. We pass a similar order in this case.

17. In this connection we wish to say that our ancestors were not fools. They knew that in certain years there may be droughts or water shortages for some other reason, and water was also required for cattle to drink and bathe in etc. Hence they built a pond attached to every village, a tank attached to every temple, etc. These were their traditional rain water harvesting methods, which served them for thousands of years.

18. Over the last few decades, however, most of these ponds in our country have been filled with earth and built upon by greedy people, thus destroying their original character. This has contributed to the water shortages in the country.

19. Also, many ponds are auctioned off at throw away prices to businessmen for fisheries in collusion with authorities/Gram Panchayat officials, and even this money collected from these so called auctions are not used for the common benefit of the villagers but misappropriated by certain individuals. The time has come when these malpractices must stop.

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. Likewise in 2011 AIR SCW 3769 the Supreme Court reiterated the observation made in 2001 (6) SCC 496, which is reproduced as under:-

"4. This court, in Hinch Lal Tiwari vs. Kamala Devi [2001 (6) SCC 496] observed thus:

"There is concurrent finding that a pond exists and the area covered by it varies in the rainy season. In such a case no part of it could have been allotted to anybody for construction of house building or any allied purposes.

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."

14. One of the copy of policy framed by the State was placed during the course of arguments. The existence of such policy is not disputed by any one. The policy is named & styled as for benefit of the people. Reading of such scheme would show that the government also has shown its concern to preserve the water bodies and make availability of water to all. The concern of State is also writ large. It is stated that though there is no shortage of water, but it is to be preserved so that the water would be available through out the year and the policy and it is decided that the small rivers and canals to be revived. The scheme further shows that if the water bodies are restored, it will lead to develop all the villages and allowing the cattle to drink water etc. The said policy of the State is in consonance with the above guidelines of the Supreme Court and it is expected that the government will carry out its scheme to restore the water bodies all over the State.

15. Therefore, taking into account the direction issued by the Supreme Court and the policy as framed by the State Government only irresistible conclusion comes to fore that water bodies are to be saved. What does implementation of policy depend on. The implementation of policy also depends on threat of enforceability. In a given situation when there is acute scarcity to hold the underground level of water, the preservation of water bodies all over the State would be of utmost importance and civilization cannot be allowed to sit at the fence by scratching its head to find out plausible means.

16. Consequently, it is ordered that in respect of the water body named as Chhatva Talab, situated at Khasra No. 472 & 475 (as per Annexure P-15) wherein the total area of the Talab is shwon as 6.15 acres shall be restored to its original area. Likewise the pond named & styled as Sarju Bandha Talab situated at Khasra No. 125 admeasuring 32.78 acres at Mauja Boriyakhurd shall also be restored to its original area. It is further directed that in case the Tehsildar along with the revenue authorities shall carry out the demarcation of the said ponds and if the construction are found over such area barring old temple, it shall be removed from both the ponds within a period of 6 months.

17. The facts brought before this High Court by these petitions pertains to the ponds named as Chatva Talab, Raipur and Sarju Bandha Talab Tikrapara but story of all other kinds of reservoirs in the State of Chhattisgarh are not different. As per water resource vision, 2045, India has 16% of the world population whereas water resources are only 4%. As such India is facing alarming problem of water resources. The water is basic human need for life and health and demand of water is increasing day by day. To take drastic steps is order of the day to meet the requirement of ever increasing population and for catering to the demands of human being and livestock as well.

18. In view of the above, amidst lack of clarity of other water bodies, all the District Collectors of the State of Chhattisgarh are directed to form a body comprising of Collector with the participation of two eminent social workers who may be academician or person concerned with environment and other officials as the case may be to prepare and place the exhaustive report as to status of all reservoirs situated in the State as on 01-11-2000 and on 01-04-2019. The report must contain the catchment area of reservoirs and encroachment thereon, if any. The reports have to be submitted before the learned Advocate General of the State within four months from the date of this order, who in turn, place the report in the form of paper book before this High Court within one month thereafter.

The Registry is directed to register and place the report before the Hon'ble Bench of this High Court as per prevailing Rules.

Accordingly, both the petitions are allowed.

Chhattisgarh High Court in Devashish Rai vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. [27.07.2021]

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR 

Proceedings through video conferencing 

WPPIL No. 101 of 2019 

1. Devashish Rai S/o Dinobandhu Rai Aged About 42 Years R/o Pakhanjur, New Market Ward No. 15, Ambedkar Ward, Post Office - Pakhanjur District - Kanker Chhattisgarh. 

 ---- Petitioner 

 Versus 

1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Revenue And Disaster Management Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nawa Raipur Chhattisgarh.

2. The Secretary, Forest Department, Government of Chhattisgarh, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nawa Raipur Chhattisgarh. 

3. The Collector, District - North Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh.

4. The Sub - Divisional Officer (Revenue) Pakhanjur, District - North Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh. 

5. The Tahsildar, Pakhanjur, District - North Bastar Kaner Chhattisgarh.

6. Premanand Vishwas S/o Late Sahdev Aged About 70 Years Caste - Namoshudra, R/o Village P.V. - 17, Tahsil - Pakhanjur, District - North Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh. 

---- Respondents

For Petitioner - Shri D.N. Prajapati, Advocate. 

 For respective Respondents/State- Shri Vikram Sharma, Dy. Government Advocate, Shri Parag Kotecha, Advocate. 

Hon'ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra, Ag. Chief Justice 

Hon'ble Smt. Rajani Dubey, J.

Judgment on Board By Hon'ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra, Ag. Chief Justice.

27-07-2021

1. Heard.

2. This writ petition in the nature of PIL has been preferred seeking direction to the respondent State Authority to act in accordance with the direction issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Jagpal Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab & others 2011 Volume 11 SCC 396 and to take immediate action for eviction of the private respondent from Government forest land and restore its possession in favour of Government.

3. In the return filed by the State on 25-07-2021, a statement has been made in paragraph 6 thereof that encroachment from Khasra No.223, 227, 582, 222 as well as 230 has been removed, although in the order annexed with the return, there is no mention of Khasra No.230.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that entire encroachment has not been removed and only some part of the encroachment has been removed as would be clear from the Panchnama at page 7 of the return.

5. Considering the statement made in the return and the documents annexed thereto as also the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Jagpal Sigh (supra), since the Government has made sincere efforts to remove encroachment, the writ petition is disposed of with direction that the entire encroachment on Government land, be it forest land or Government Revenue Land, be removed from the possession of respondent No.6 or in possession of any other individual residing in the subject village within a period of six months from today. If the entire encroachment is not removed, the petitioner would be at liberty to prefer fresh Personal Interest litigation (P.I.L.).

6. Accordingly, the present WPPIL is disposed of with the liberty aforesaid. 

Chhattisgarh High Court in Ajay Agrawal vs State Of Chhattisgarh [10.06.2021]

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR 

Order Sheet WPC No. 2074 of 2021 

Ajay Agrawal 

Versus 

State Of Chhattisgarh & Ors. 

 10/06/2021

Shri Malay Shrivastava, counsel for the petitioner.

Smt. Richa Shukla, Dy.G.A. for the State.

Heard on I.A. No.1 application for grant of interim relief. The perusal of the order dated 9/03/2021 would show that the Khasra No.169 area 0.56 acres was recorded as water body according to the misal bandobast of the year 1929-1930 and in the panchshala records also the same was shown as a water body.

The submission of the petitioner that the road was constructed by him for the public purpose and the road which has already been made may not be removed. It is further submitted that the same was done after obtaining permission from the Municipal Corporation. In the order dated 9/03/2021 direction have been made to restore the area 0.56 acres of Khasra No.169 by excavating the debris. The Supreme Court in case of Jagpal Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & ors. (2011) 11 SCC 396 has observed that the nature of the water body at any cost cannot be changed. Since prima facie the order reflects that in the misal bandobast of year 1929-1930 land of 0.56 acres of Khasra No.169 was recorded as a water body, then in all cost the water body is required to be restored and the submission of the petitioner that he has made certain road cannot be appreciated. I do not find any bonafide in such submission for the reason that if the road are required to be constructed, the Municipal Corporation is duty bound to do it.

Consequently, I am not inclined to stay the order dated 9/03/2021. Accordingly, I.A. No.1 application for grant of interim relief is dismissed. Learned State counsel is directed to file reply.

List the case after four weeks. 

(Goutam Bhaduri) 

 JUDGE

Chhattisgarh High Court in Atul Dubey v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. [Order dated 19.09.2017]

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR 

Judgment Reserved on: 13/09/2017 

Judgment Delivered on : 19/09/2017 

Writ Petition (PIL) No. 77 of 2017 

Atul Dubey S/o Late V. N. Dubey, Aged About 48 Years R/o 18, Rekhankan Colony, Manendragarh Road, Ambikapur, District Surguja (Chhattisgarh) 

---- Petitioner 

Versus 

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Revenue And Disaster Management Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya New Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 
2. The Collector, Ambikapur, District Surguja, (Chhattisgarh) 
3. The Tahsildar, Ambikapur, District Surguja, (Chhattisgarh) 
4. Poonam Chand Agrawal S/o Late Ramnivas Agrawal, Aged About 57 Years R/o Sangam Chowk, Ambikapur, District Surguja (Chhattisgarh) 
5. Naresh Kumar Agrawal S/o Late Ramnivas Agrawal, Aged About 52 Years R/o Jawahar Market Colony, Banaras Chowk, Ambikapur, District Surguja, (Chhattisgarh) 
6. Ashok Kumar Agrawal S/o Late Ramnivas Agrawal, Aged About 50 Years R/o Jawahar Market Colony, Banaras Chowk, Ambikapur, District Surguja, (Chhattisgarh) 
7. Subhash Kumar Agrawal S/o Late Ramnivas Agrawal, Aged About 40 Years R/o Jawahar Market Colony, Banaras Chowk, Ambikapur, District Surguja, (Chhattisgarh) 
8. Shiv Agrawal S/o Naresh Agrawal, Aged About 26 Years R/o Jawahar Market Colony, Banaras Chowk, Ambikapur, District Surguja, (Chhattisgarh) 
9. Prakash Kumar Agrawal S/o Ashok Kumar Agrawal, Aged About 23 Years R/o Sangam Chowk, Ambikapur, District Surguja (Chhattisgarh) 
10. Deepak Agrawal S/o Poonam Chand Agrawal, Aged About 26 Years R/o Sangam Chowk, Ambikapur, District Surguja (Chhattisgarh) 
11. Vasundhara City Plex, Namnakala, Through Its Partner Krishnanand Singh S/o Late Rajendra Bahadur Singh, Resident of Sattipara, Ambikapur, Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja, (Chhattisgarh) 
12. The Assistant Director, Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh, Regional Office, Ambikapur, District Surguja, (Chhattisgarh) 

---- Respondents

For Petitioner : Shri Rahul Mishra, Advocate. 

For Respondent/State : Shri Y.S.Thakur, Additional Advocate General and Shri UNS Deo, Government Advocate

For Private Respondents : Shri Sunil Otwani, Shri S.C.Verma and Shri Manoj Paranjpe, Advocates.

Hon'ble Shri Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, Chief Justice 

Hon'ble Shri Sharad Kumar Gupta, Judge 

Order 

Per Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, Chief Justice

1. This writ petition is filed as a Public Interest Litigation.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner, the learned Additional Advocate General and the learned counsel for the contesting private Respondents.

3. The Petitioner pleads that the land in question referred to in the writ petition is recorded as 'Forest Land' in the name of 'Gair Majrua Sarkar' and that the plea of the private Respondents that the said land was settled in the name of Maharaja Ramanuj Sharan Singh Deo, son of Maharaja Raghunath Sharan Singh Deo, cannot be countenanced since, according to the Petitioner, the land in question was never settled in the name of Maharaja Ramanuj Sharan Singh Deo as per Adhikar Abhilekh Panji issued by the State Government. The Petitioner proceeds to contend that different transactions leading from Maharaja Ramanuj Sharan Singh Deo has later on brought the property into the custody of Respondents No. 4 to 10 who are constructing a colony in the name of Vasundhara Ramniwas Nagar Colony over land of around 16 acres which, according to the Petitioner, is "Forest Government Land". Respondent No. 11 is alleged to be constructing a Cinema Theater in violation of the provisions of Chhattisgarh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 and Chhattisgarh Bhumi Vikas Niyam, 1984. It appears that the Petitioner attempted to levy a challenge to the aforesaid situation before the Single Bench, which however turned down the plea that the Petitioner had no personal interest in the matter. Utilizing that situation, this matter is instituted as a Public Interest Litigation. The Petitioner pleads that different provisions of law have been violated and the activities being carried on by the private Respondents are in violation of the laws governing the protection of forest lands and also the Government lands. The Petitioner therefore seeks a direction to the official Respondents to act in accordance with the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jagpal Singh v. State of Punjab; (2011) 11 SCC 396, and the State Government's Circular dated 10.03.2011 and take immediate action for eviction of the private Respondents from the Government forest lands and restore the possession of the land in favour of the Government.

4. The private Respondents have, through their separate returns, primarily pointed out that while there is absolutely no reason, on facts, for the Petitioner to raise contentions as has been done by him, he had instituted different writ petitions including public interest litigations and also writ appeals in relation to the constructions and possession of the private Respondents. A list of 12 cases has been generated as having been filed either by the Petitioner or against him in relation to the different matters to point out that the Petitioner appears to be repeatedly scouting this Court by pursuing baseless litigations against the private Respondents.

5. Perusing the pleadings in the writ petition and returns filed by the private Respondents, the question that emerges at the outset is as to whether the issues relating to the lands mentioned in the writ petition are to be subjected to adjudication in writ jurisdiction. If the Petitioner were to assert that the lands are forest lands, no statutory authority involved in the conservation of the forest lands is party to this writ petition. The mere impleadment of the Collector and the Tahsildar apart from the State of Chhattisgarh through its Secretary in the Revenue and Disaster Management Department will not lead to issuance of any directions by this Court on the premise that any duly constituted authority or official of governance has failed to perform any statutory or public duty. It is equally so as regards Respondent No. 12, the Assistant Director, Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh. The jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, which may be extended to deal with public interest litigations, are always to be guided by well-settled principles which lay down the parameters for exercise of jurisdiction in public interest. It cannot be converted to an opportunity to agitate issues of such nature where the Petitioner has not shown that he has made complaints to any statutory authority, but have not been considered duly. No directions could be granted to any authority in governance for conservation of any land which the Petitioner alleges as forest land, in the absence of the jurisdictional officials being sued for any specific relief in that regard. The pleading of the private Respondent is also to the effect that this is not a matter in which the Petitioner should be permitted to agitate the issue in public interest. It may be open to the Petitioner to take recourse to due procedure and opportunity to bring his allegations to the notice of the competent officials, departments or authorities bestowed with statutory public duties as regards protection and conservation of forest and other Government lands.

6. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any ground to entertain this public interest litigation and resultantly this writ petition is dismissed without prejudice to the Petitioner seeking recourse to any proceedings as mentioned in the immediately preceding paragraph.

Chhattigarh High Court in Bhanwar Sen Mogare & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. [Order dated 19.09.2019]

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILASPUR 

Judgment Reserved on 19.09.2019 

Judgment Delivered on 02.12.2019 

Writ Appeal No. 103 of 2016 

(Arising out of order dated 28.01.2016 passed in 

Writ Petition (C) No.810 of 2015 by the learned Single Judge) 

Bhanwar Sen Mogare S/o Late Puran Lal Mogare, Category- Scheduled Caste, R/o Bapu Up- Nagar, Railway Area, Ward No. 64, Bilaspur, Police Station Torwa, Tahsil Bilaspur District Bilsapur, Chhattisgarh.

and 66 others                                                                                                                      ---- Appellants 

 

Versus

1. Union of India Through Secretary Department of Railway New Delhi (India) (Wrongly Mentioned As Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh In The Impugned Order) 

2. General Manager, South Eastern Central Railway Bilaspur- Division Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 

3. Senior Sub-Divisional Engineer (Works) South Eastern Central Railway Bilaspur- Division Distt- Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 

4. Senior Sub-Divisional Engineer (Awash) South Eastern Central Railway Bilaspur- Division Distt- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 5. Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Bilaspur Distt- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 5 

6. Station House Officer, Police Station- Torwa Distt- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 

7. Divisional Railway Manager South Eastern Central Railway Bilaspur- Division Distt- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 

8. State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary, Department of Urban Administration, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 

9. Collector, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 

 ---- Respondents

Writ Appeal No. 328 of 2016 

(Arising out of order dated 28.01.2016 passed in 

Writ Petition (C) No.1893 of 2015 by the learned Single Judge)

1. Pushpa Mahettar W/o Sudesh, Aged About 30 Years Category Scheduled Caste

and 33 others. 

---- Appellants 

Versus

1. Union of India Through Secretary Department of Railway New Delhi (India) (Wrongly Mentioned As Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh In The Impugned Order).

2. General Manager, South Eastern Central Railway Bilaspur Division Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

3. Senior Sub Divisional Engineer (Works) South Eastern Central Railway Bilaspur Division Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

4. Senior Sub Divisional Engineer (Awash) South Eastern Central Railway Bilaspur Division Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

5. Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Bilaspur Distt.Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

6. Station House Officer, Police Station Torwa Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

7. Divisional Railway Manager South Eastern Central Railway Bilaspur Division Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

8. State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary, Department of Urban Administration, Mantralaya Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

9. Collector, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondents 

Writ Appeal No. 566 of 2016 

(Arising out of order dated 28.01.2016 passed in 

Writ Petition (C) No.1893 of 2015 by the learned Single Judge)

1. Sarla Beriya W/o Shri Sanoj Beriya, Aged About 27 Years Category Scheduled Caste

and 152 others

---- Appellants 

Versus

1. Union of India Through Secretary Department of Railway New Delhi (India) (Wrongly Mentioned As Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh In The Impugned Order)

and 123 others

---- Respondents 

For Appellants : Shri Kishore Narayan, Advocate 

For Respondent/State : Shri Vivek Ranjan Tiwari, Additional Advocate General 

For Respondent/UOI : Shri B. Gopa Kumar, Assistant Solicitor General 

For Respondent/Railways : Shri Abhishek Sinha, Standing Counsel 

For Respondent/Corporation: Shri H.B. Agrawal, Senior Advocate in WA No.103/2016 with Shri Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate 

For Respondent/Corporation: Shri A.S. Kachhawaha, Advocate with in WA Nos.328/2016 

Ms. Pushpa Dwivedi, Advocate  

Hon'ble Shri P. R. Ramachandra Menon, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge C A V Judgment Per Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge

1. Since all the three writ appeals are arising out of common order dated 28.01.2016 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (C) Nos.810 of 2015 and 1893 of 2015, they were heard together and decided by this common judgment.

2. Brief facts for disposal of these appeals are that the Appellants have raised construction on land situated at Bapu Nagar Area, Ward No.64, Bilaspur, which belongs to Indian Railways. The Appellants have constructed accommodations over the encroached lands. The Respondent-Railways had issued notice on different dates for removing unauthorized constructions over the Railway property. The issuance of notice for removing unauthorized constructions over the Railway property made the Petitioners to approach the High Court by way of filing the writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with following reliefs:-

"10.(1) Issue a writ of prohibition or any other appropriate writ directing the respondents to not to demolish the houses of the petitioner and not to evict the petitioners from their land in possession.

10.(2) Pass an order directing the respondents to regularize the holding of land possession by way of grant of patta under different scheme of the government.

10.(3) Pass a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to provide the petitioners a just and proper rehabilitation to a suitable place of residence.

10.(4) Pass any other order as the Hon'ble Court in view of special facts and circumstances mentioned above in the interest of justice."

3. The Respondent-Railways after receiving notice of writ petitions submitted their reply. The writ Court after hearing counsel for the respective parties disposed off the writ petitions mentioning therein that Petitioners who are encroachers have no vested right over the encroached lands or to have a claim of regularization of encroachment. But looking to the facts and circumstances of the case as well as several schemes of Government for providing residential accommodation to poor and downtrodden homeless persons in urban and rural areas, issued following directions :

 The Railways are entitled to proceed to evict the Petitioners by removing encroachment and/or demolishing illegal construction made by the Petitioners on Government land/Railway land.

 The Petitioners may apply for allotment of the houses under different Government schemes like 'Atal Awas Yogna' etc. and on such application being made, the Government may deal with the same in accordance with its own policy, as and when such accommodation is available. However, pendency of the Petitioners' application for allotment under any Government scheme would not come in way of Railways in evicting the Petitioners."

4. Dissatisfied with the disposal of writ petitions and observations made therein by the learned Single Judge, Appellants have approached this Court by way of filing these writ appeals.

5. Learned counsel for the Appellants submitted that Appellants are very poor persons and most of them belong to members of reserved class community. He further submitted that most of them were engaged as Safai Karmacharis or doing labour works and residing there for last more than 60 years after construction of small accommodation over the lands, which is said to be a Government land owned by the Railways.

He further submitted that Railway being one wing of Central Government, therefore, the Central Government and as also the State under whose territorial jurisdiction Appellants are residing, have an obligation to provide house and shelters to homeless citizens, like petitioners before evicting them holding the construction to be unauthorized over encroached Government land. He further submitted that at present, there is a scheme framed by the Central Government as 'Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana', which is to be implemented by the State Government through local bodies. He further submitted that in pursuance to the order passed by the learned Single Judge, Appellants have moved applications before the Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur for rehabilitation, but till date, none of the Appellants have been provided any accommodation by way of rehabilitation under the scheme floated by the Central Government on in any of the scheme of the State. He also submitted that right of housing is a fundamental right, therefore, without there being a rehabilitation, no eviction from the Government land can be ordered. He lastly submitted that learned Single Judge has not taken into consideration this very aspect, therefore, the order passed by the learned Single Judge is required to be interdicted.

6. On the other hand, learned standing counsel for the Respondent-Railways submitted that most of the Appellants are in age category of about 40 years, therefore, the submission made by learned counsel for the Appellants that they are residing over the encroached land for last more than 60 years, is not sustainable. He further submitted that encroachers do not have any legal enforceable right to occupy over encroached Government land and to get it regularized. He also submitted that there is very limited land available with Railways and these lands are required for extension of railway tracks, construction of structure for smooth running of Railways. Railway is neither having any land in excess nor having the funds for the purpose of rehabilitation of encroachers/Appellants.

7. Learned counsel for the Respondent-Corporation submitted that though several housing schemes were floated, but most of housing schemes closed by efflux of time and at present, the scheme floated by the Central Government in the name of 'Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana' is only running. He further submitted that Municipal Corporation has earlier prepared a list of landless/homeless persons in urban areas, who have encroached the lands of State Government as well as lands belonging to the Municipal Corporation and many of them were have allotted accommodations constructed under the schemes to eligible persons entitled for the same as per fulfillment of parameters for getting the benefit of housing schemes. He also submitted that at present, Municipal Corporation is having shortage of funds and the persons who are above the Appellants in the list prepared by Municipal Corporation are waiting in the list and they will be allotted accommodations under the housing schemes as per their seniority in the list.

8. Learned counsel for the Respondent/Union of India submitted that there is no policy of rehabilitation as such framed by the Railways, but the housing scheme floated by the Government of India and it is to be implemented by State or its bodies.

9. Learned counsel for the Respondent/State submitted that as per directions of Hon'ble Court, State had already submitted their alternative affidavit, which is placed on record. He further submitted that rehabilitation can be done only in accordance with the list prepared by the Municipal Corporation. He also submitted that if they fulfill the criteria of being homeless persons, comes within the zone of consideration to be allotted residential accommodation under the 'house for all' scheme in the name and style of 'Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana' certainly they will be allotted accommodation but in accordance with the serial number and seniority in the list.

10. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and perused the records carefully.

11. The Appellants have filed copy of notice of eviction issued by the Railways for removing their unauthorized constructions over the Railway property, from which, it is clear that Appellants have encroached over the Railway property and have also raised construction over it. It is not their claim that they are owner of the said property, but in fact, their case/claim is only that they are residing over the said land situated at Bapu Nagar Area, Ward No.64, Bilaspur for last more than 60 years.

12. The encroachers undoubtedly over Government land or any other land do not have any vested right to maintain their possession over the encroached Government land except to be considered for rehabilitation under the scheme if they fulfill the parameters prescribed under any scheme.

13. The learned Single Judge while disposing off the writ petitions has taken into consideration the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of Jagpal Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Others1 and Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation v. Nawab Khan Gulab Khan and Others2, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that even if the Appellants therein have built houses on the land in question, 1 AIR 2011 SC 1123 2 (1997) 11 SCC 121 they must be ordered to remove their construction and possession. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also observed that illegalities cannot be regularized, common interest of public at large cannot be made to suffer merely because the unauthorized occupation/construction has subsisted for many years. Public property needs to be preserved and protected; no one has a right to make use of public property for their private purpose without requisite authorization from the competent authority, and illegal/unauthorized constructions have been held to be permanent obstruction to free passage of traffic, safety and security.

14. During the pendency of these appeals, this Court passed several orders directing Municipal Corporation to submit particulars about the schemes and number of houses constructed and allotted. The relevant portion of one of the order dated 01.08.2016 is extracted below :

"We direct the Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur to file a fresh affidavit that how many houses are lying vacant under this scheme or any other similar scheme and how many persons have been rehabilitated under this scheme or any other scheme. We also direct the Secretary, Urban Administration to convene a meeting with the Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur and the Divisional Railway Manager, SECR to discuss this aspect of the matter as to how the Appellants have to be rehabilitated. Minutes of the said meeting be furnished to this Court within three months from today."

15. On 17.11.2016, looking to the parameters of entitlement for rehabilitation under the housing schemes, this Court has recorded thus :

"On 07.08.2016, we had issued the following direction :

"While framing the scheme, the authorities may also consider that if some of the Appellants are employed and earning sufficient amount, then they can be excluded from his rehabilitation scheme."

16. In compliance of various orders passed by this Court, Respondent/State submitted their affidavit on 29.04.2016, in which, they have pleaded in paragraph-6 as under :

"6. That in compliance of the directions of the Hon'ble Court the petitioners had submitted their application before the Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur for allotment of the houses under different Government schemes like Rajiv Sahari Nirdhan Yojna, Atal Awash Yojna, Valmiki Ambedkar Awash Yojna (VAMBAY) and Integrated Housing and Slum Development Pragramme (IHSDP) etc. and after receiving the applications so received they are entered in the register by the Corporation and thereafter an enquiry is pending in respect of the entitlement of applicants and if they found fit for allotment of the accommodation their cases will be forwarded to the House Allotment Committee, of which the Collector is the Chairman and after approval of the Committee, on availability of the accommodation the same will be alloted to the respective person. Copy of the chart showing the status of the accommodation allotted and under construction in Rajiv Sahari Nirdhan Yojna, Atal Awash Yojna, Valmiki Ambedkar Awash Yojna (VAMBAY) and Integrated Housing and Slum Development Programme (ISHDP) are collectively annexed herewith as Annexure- R-2."

17. Another affidavit has been sworn by Principal Secretary, Department of Urban Administration and Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh, in which, he has mentioned that currently, only one scheme of Government of India is running under the name of 'Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana' and pleaded as under :

"7. That the earlier schemes had excluded slums located on Railway lands from their purview, but the current scheme, namely PMAY, does not exclude any slum located anywhere in the urban area.

8. That the broad object of PMAY is "Housing for All" and as such it is the policy of the Government not to turn away any person who claims to be homeless and seeks a home; hence applications are received from every applicant as has been received from the petitioners/appellants, and taken up for verification of credentials and eligibility before being put into the process of allotment as and when housing stocks become available.

9. that the purpose of the other affidavit filed by Shri P.K. Panchayati, Executive Engineer, Bilaspur Municipal Corporation was to indicate that there are already applicants in queue waiting for allotment of a house from the dwelling units under construction and that there is no ready stock of houses which can be alloted off the shelf to the petitioners/appellants, displaced from lands of the Indian Railways;"

18. The aforementioned affidavits submitted by the Government Officials would clearly reflect that the slums located on Railways land are covered under 'Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana' and further the applications submitted by the Appellants are under process of verification of their credentials and eligibility before entering their names in the list of eligible persons, entitled for benefit of housing scheme to be allotted accommodations as and when housing stocks become available. As of now, the Appellants have already moved applications for their rehabilitation before the competent authority i.e. Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur and their eligibility, entitlement and credentials to come under the zone of consideration to avail benefit of the housing scheme has been said to be under process.

19. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court with regard to removing encroachments over the Government lands in the aforementioned cases, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order passed by learned Single Judge in refusing to grant relief of regularization of encroachment and further not issuing prohibitory writ against the Respondents against demolition of unauthorized constructions (houses) of the Appellants.

20. In the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly, looking to the claim of Appellants that they are residing since long over the lands in question, Respondents No. 5 and 8 are directed to complete the procedure of verification of the credentials of the Appellants at the earliest and to prepare a list of eligible persons among the Appellants to be entitled for benefit under the housing scheme and to place them in the entire list of eligible persons prepared by Municipal Corporation as encroacher on Government lands including the lands of Railways and to allot the houses as and when available. We also direct that the Respondents No. 5 and 8 will not make any discrimination amongst encroachers of State Government land, land of Municipal Corporation or the land of Railways, but will allot the available accommodation or accommodation to be constructed strictly in accordance with the seniority in the list.

21. Looking to the upcoming season of winter and to minimize the hardship, we also direct that the Appellants may not be dispossessed till February, 2020.

22. In view of above observations/directions, these writ appeals are disposed off.

                                               Sd/-                                                     Sd/- 

                        (P. R. Ramachandra Menon)                     (Parth Prateem Sahu) 

                                     Chief Justice                                               Judge

Chattisgarh High Court in Gyan Prakash Sahu & Ors. v. State of Chattisgarh & Ors. [Order dated 19.04.2018]

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

WPPIL No. 11 of 2018 

1. Gyan Praksh Sahu S/o Rajendra Kumar Sahu, Aged About 30 Years, 

2. Vyas Narayan S/o Pancham Dhurander Aged About 52 Years, 

3. Yaman Lal Sahu S/o Gulal Ram Sahu, Aged About 35 Years, 

All are R/o Khamhariya (D), P.O. Khamhariya (D), Tahsil Patan, Civil And Revenue District Durg Chhattisgarh.                             

                                                                                    ---- Petitioners 

Versus 

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Panchayat, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh. 

2. The Collector, Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh. 

3. Sub Divisional Officer, Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh. 

4. The Tahsildar, Patan, District Durg Chhattisgarh. 

5. Gram Panchayat, Khamhariya, Through Its President, Tahsil Patan, District Durg Chhattisgarh. 

6. Gram Panchayat, Khamhariya, Through Its Secretary, Tahsil Patan, District Durg Chhattisgarh. 

7. Gram Panchayat Kosariya Marar (Patel) Samaj, Through Its President Village Khamhariya (Patan), District Durg Chhattisgarh. 

                                                                                    ---- Respondents

For Petitioners Shri Punit Ruparel, Advocate. For Respondents/State Shri Y.S. Thakur, Additional Advocate General.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Hon'ble Shri Justice Ram Prasanna Sharma 

Order On Board By Prashant Kumar Mishra J.

19/04/2018

1. It is putforth that the respondent No.7 Gram Panchayat Kosariya Marar (Patel) Samaj has constructed a building over nistari land reserved to be used as compost pit, locally known as guruva.

2. At this juncture, learned State counsel would submit that a case of encroachment of Government nistari land has been registered against the respondent No.7 and the notice has been issued to the said party, which is evident from the document Annxure A-1.

3. Since the respondent/State has already initiated the proceeding, the writ petition is disposed of with observation that the competent authority shall complete the proceedings within a period of three months from today, keeping in view the observations made by the Supreme Court in Jagpal Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others reported in (2011) 11 SCC 396. 

                        Sd/-                                                                        Sd/- 

                     Judge                                                                      Judge

            Prashant Kumar Mishra                                       Ram Prasanna Sharma