Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 651 (JHR)

Court on its own motion v. State of Jharkhand

2012-04-27

APARESH KUMAR SINGH, PRAKASH TATIA

body2012
ORDER I.A. No. 633 of 2012 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant in I.A. No. 633 of 2012. 2. The applicant's contention is that the applicant was the General Secretary of the registered union of Bokaro Steel Workers' Union and the respondent-company, Bokaro Steel Limited itself allotted three premises to the Union, in proof of which the applicant has placed copies of the orders vide Annexures-1, 2 and 3. It is submitted that applicant was never unauthorized occupant and he was in possession of the premises allotted by the respondent-company. It is submitted that when the General Secretary of the Union was elected as a Member of Parliament, he was allotted a bigger bungalow and when he ceased to be the Member of Parliament, he himself requested for smaller bungalow, which was earlier allotted to the applicant, General Secretary of the Union. It is submitted that in view of the order passed by the Division Bench of this court in W.P.(P.I.L.) No. 1783 of 2011, the union's premises have been sealed on 27.7.2011. Now in February, 2012 this interlocutory application has been filed seeking relief of delivery of possession to the applicant. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that since applicant is not unauthorized occupant, therefore he is entitled to get the possession of the premises. 4. We have considered the submission of the learned counsel for the applicant. It will be appropriate to mention here that this court in W.P.(P.I.L.) No. 1783 of 2011 came across the grave state of affairs of encroachment of more than 35,000/quarters and bungalows of only 4 Public Sector Companies and encroachment over thousand of acres of land of these companies. Finding that a large number of high "dignitaries" holding high posts, who may be a Members of Parliament or Government officers like Superintendent of Police or Union leaders etc. were also in the list of encroachers. In a drive to remove all the encroachments, several orders were passed by this court after 27th July, 2011 and till date and even notices have been issued to the C.A.G. to explain that whether C.A.G. has noticed such gross deliberate mismanagement of Public Sector Companies and these companies paid more than 100 crores of rupees for the electricity charges of the encroachers. Thousands of encroachments have been removed because of the orders passed by this court in P.I.L. In that fact situation the respondent-company, B.S.L. submitted an application seeking permission to take preventive steps to prevent the re-occurrence of same situation, by making proper arrangement and this court already ordered that company is free to manage its properties and this court will not interfere in the management of the company in any way. The court is concerned only against the misutilization of the public properties, immovable or movable, whereas we have already stated that encroachment of 35,000 quarters and bungalows of 4 companies was alarming situation and in that situation if the company has taken action and is taking action for possession of the properties, which the company deem to be unauthorizedly occupied, because of the many reasons, we are not inclined to entertain this interlocutory application to grant any relief in the matter, where the premises was sealed in the month of July, 2011 and this interlocutory application has been filed in February, 2012, after action taken by the respondent-company. 5. At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that tile present applicant has also filed regular writ petition, which is pending before the learned Single Judge and the learned Single Judge has made observation that the applicant may approach the Division Bench in view of the order passed in W.P.(PIL) No. 1783 of 2008. 6. Be that as it may, the facts remain that the applicant, who claims to have been allotted the premises, has no right, title and interest in the property and when the possession has already been taken from the applicant, then he has no right to claim the possession back when admittedly applicant is not claiming title and interest in the property, not only then but applicant has no interest in the property. An allottee cannot resist eviction by owner of property in all facts and circumstances, and particularly when it is case of mass encroachment over properties of Public Limited Companies. 7. Hence, this interlocutory application is dismissed. W.P.(P.I.L.) No. 1783 of 2008 8. Learned counsel for the C.A.G. submitted that after audit a large scale bungling of properties in the Public Sector Units were found and several objections were raised by C.A.G. and was duly informed to the Central Ministry. 9. 7. Hence, this interlocutory application is dismissed. W.P.(P.I.L.) No. 1783 of 2008 8. Learned counsel for the C.A.G. submitted that after audit a large scale bungling of properties in the Public Sector Units were found and several objections were raised by C.A.G. and was duly informed to the Central Ministry. 9. If it is so, then it is a grave matter because of the reason that we have already taken note of the fact that 35,000 quarters and bungalows were in possession of persons belonging to political field, union and Government high officials and C.A.G. wrote to the Central Government and brought this to the knowledge of Union of India that the companies are paying electricity and water charges to the tune of rupees more than hundred crores out of the companies fund. 10. Learned counsel for the companies and Union of India sought time to address to this Court about all the issues by filing appropriate affidavit by the responsible officers explaining the situation under which such activities were going on causing loss of rupees more than 100 of crores to the public exchequer. 11. The affidavit must be filed by 12th June, 2012. 12. Put up this case on 12th June, 2012.