Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 472 (JHR)

Court on its own Motion v. State of Jharkhand

2011-06-09

JAYA ROY, PRAKASH TATIA

body2011
JUDGMENT: 1. In pursuance of the direction issued by this Court, the State Government undertook the job of removal of illegal encroachment in the entire State of Jharkhand and relief has been obtained by the public in this Public Interest Litigation. 2. This Court was of the considered opinion that it was the duty of the State Government to remove encroachment and before that it was the duty of the State Government to see that no government land or lands of public utility could have been encroached but because of the connivance of the officers of the Government, the situation went beyond control to the extent and now the voice is being raised against the removal of encroachment in the name of the poor people ignoring the fact that instead of raising voice at right time before situation went beyond control and demand to provide adequate facility to those poor persons who are not provided the same under any scheme to live dignifiedly objection is raised why law is enforced. It is relevant that none of the petition has been filed so as to say that encroachment can be allowed. Only prayers have been made by the persons affected was for their rehabilitation. It is the duty of the State Government, who has statutory duty and obligation as well as its public right to see that their lands should not go in the hands of the law breakers and at the same time, it is the part of the duty of the welfare State to safeguard the interest of the citizen of India and who are entitled to live dignifiedly. Therefore, this Court has passed orders in a very special circumstances of the State of Jharkhand where admittedly the Government remained functional for a very short period after creation of the State of Jharkhand. 3. Since specific progress has been made in the matter of removal of the encroachment in the entire State of Jharkhand, therefore, the next step is required to be followed by the State Government to see that the area from which encroachments have been removed should not be left available for again encroachment. Therefore, the State is directed to submit an affidavit to indicate whether the areas which have been cleared from encroachment have been again encroached by law breakers or not? Therefore, the State is directed to submit an affidavit to indicate whether the areas which have been cleared from encroachment have been again encroached by law breakers or not? If those areas have been encroached by any body, then the State may indicate what action against those erring officers have been taken because any order of the Court is required to be obeyed and if it will be found that Courts order is being frustrated then it may be treated to be a negligence of the person who are supervising the maintenance, cleanliness and responsible for enforcing the law against encroachment. Such affidavit may be filed by 04th of July, 2011. 4. Learned counsel for the State submitted that in view of the order dated 18.5.2011, the State was required to submit a report about the progress in removal of encroachment as well as with respect to the rehabilitation as per the policy of the State and for that purpose, State is taking action and the concerned officers of the District and State wants to submit a comprehensive single report compiling all the facts contained in the various reports which may be sent by the District authorities to the State Government so that there may not be unnecessary paper work in this writ petition and that too, to avoid the direct reaching reports from the District Officials to this Court without notice to the State Government which may result in to that the State government may not take action which is required and State may become only an agency for sending the report as forwarding agency only. The State may submit this report about the progress in removal of encroachment/rehabilitation on or before 4th of July, 2011. 5. Learned counsel for the parties pointed out that for removal of encroachment in the 'Public Sector Undertakings' in the State of Jharkhand, one of the 'Public Interest Litigation' is pending which is W.P.(PIL) No. 1783 of 2011. The writ petition No. W.P.(PIL) No. 1783 of 2011 may also be taken together with this writ petition so that the matter may be examined covering the properties in the State of Jharkhand where encroachments are required to be removed. 6. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, list this matter along with W.P.(PIL) No. 1783 of 2011 on 4th of July, 2011. 6. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, list this matter along with W.P.(PIL) No. 1783 of 2011 on 4th of July, 2011. I.A. No. 1518/2011 & 1519/2011 Learned counsel the applicant, Mr. Mahesh Tewari, has pointed out that I.A. Nos. 1518/2011 and 1519/2011 have been filed by the South Eastern Railway complaining that there are encroachments over the railway properties in the State of Jharkhand which are required to be removed for which they have requested the District Administration for assistance but that has not been provided to the Railway. Since there is no dispute that wherever there is illegal activities of grabbing government lands, it is the duty of the State to provide assistance at least to Government bodies as well as to the local bodies including the offices of the Union of India in the State of Jharkhand. Therefore, these Interlocutory Application Nos. 1518/2011 & 1519/2011 are disposed of with a direction to the State Government to issue instructions to the District Administration to provide assistance lawfully to help any public body, Corporation or legal body in the matter of removal of encroachment after obtaining necessary particulars from the applicant Department seeking such help. It is made clear that in the name of obtaining information for taking action, the matter should not be delayed by the District Administration in any manner including police officials and they should act fast. I.A. No. 1532/2011 Learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Dilip Kumar Prasad, in I.A. No. 1532 of 2011 submits that the applicant filed a suit for title wherein a decree was passed in his favour. However, in the appeal, the decree was reversed and the applicant has approached this Court by filing Second Appeal. Learned Counsel for the applicant very fairly submitted that the appeal has not been admitted nor any interim order has been passed by the High Court. In that view of the matter, in this Interlocutory application the applicant is not entitled to any relief. Hence, this I.A. No. 1532 of 2011 is dismissed. Learned Counsel for the applicant very fairly submitted that the appeal has not been admitted nor any interim order has been passed by the High Court. In that view of the matter, in this Interlocutory application the applicant is not entitled to any relief. Hence, this I.A. No. 1532 of 2011 is dismissed. I.A. No. 1420/2011 Learned counsel for the applicant in I.A. No. 1420 of 2011 submitted that in village Pali of Ratu Circle in the District of Ranchi there is encroachment on the part of a road made by one individual for which the applicant has raised grievance and submitted complaint but that encroachment even on the part of the road has not been removed by the State. In view of the comprehensive order already passed in the 'Public Interest Litigation' for removal of encroachment from that place is relevant, then separately this Interlocutory Application No. 1420 of 2011 has no meaning. Hence, it is dismissed, however, with a direction to the State Government to see that any grievance if raised by the applicant has been rightly pointed out with respect to the land of the road, then appropriate action be taken in consonance with the action which is being already taken by the State Government. I.A. No. 1484/2011 Learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Saurav Arun, in I.A. No. 1484 of 2011 prays for withdrawal of I.A. No. 1484 of 2011 so as to challenge the annexure9 by which members of the applicant are directed to remove the encroachments. In view of the prayer of the learned counsel for the applicant, Interlocutory Application No. 1484 of 2011 is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to challenge the impugned order as annexed with this interlocutory application. I.A. Nos. 1520/2011 & 1330/2011 In view of the order passed in I.A. No. 1420 of 2011 today, these Interlocutory Application Nos. 1520 of 2011 and 1330 of 2011 are also disposed of in the same line and the State may look into the matter in the light of the direction given in I.A. No. 1420 of 2011. The order passed in the main writ petition may be tagged in the Interlocutory Application Nos. 1518 of 2011, 1519 of 2011, 1532 of 2011, 1420 of 2011, 1484 of 2011, 1520 of 2011 and 1330 of 2011. The order passed in the main writ petition may be tagged in the Interlocutory Application Nos. 1518 of 2011, 1519 of 2011, 1532 of 2011, 1420 of 2011, 1484 of 2011, 1520 of 2011 and 1330 of 2011. The Office is directed to keep these interlocutory applications separately after tagging a copy of this order in the concerned interlocutory applications.