Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 2300 (DEL)

Satish Rana v. Lt. Governor of Nct of Delhi

2014-08-27

G.ROHINI, RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW

body2014
Judgment : 1. This petition filed as a public interest litigation complains of inaction of the respondents namely the Government of NCT of Delhi, District Collector (North), Gaon Sabha, Village Khera Kalan and Police in removal of encroachments on public roads in the villages of Alipur, Holambi, Naya Bans, Nangli, Prahladpur, Shahbad, Khera Khurd, Khera Kalan in Delhi and seeks a direction to the respondents to remove all such encroachments on public roads, particularly on:- i. Road No. 119 of 41.25 ft width starting from village Prahladpur to Khera Kalan, Delhi; ii. Road No. 136 to 139 of 82.5 ft width starting from village Nangli Poona to village Khera Kalan; iii. Road No.122 (Badshahi Road) of 66 ft. width provide connectivity to road No.136; iv. Road of 24.75 ft width starting from village Khera Kalan via village Bhudhpur to Alipur; v. Internal Road No.337 of 16.5 ft width within the abadi of village Khera Kalan, Delhi; vi. Gali known as Balle Pradhan Wali Gali of 41.25 ft width within village Khera Kalan,Delhi; vii. Firni Road No. 110 of 41.25 ft width of village Khera Kalan; and viii. Road No. 44 of 24.75 ft width of village Khera Kalan, Delhi and to restore the said roads to the original condition. 2. The petition came up first before this Court on 26th March, 2014 when the counsel for the respondents appearing on advance notice stated that he would obtain instructions “with reference to the Masavi of all villages in Alipur Block” and would ascertain the width of the public roads and particularly of the ones to which reference is made in the prayer clause of the writ petition. This Court vide the same order also directed the counsel for the respondent to obtain instructions that if encroachment existed on the said roads, what action was proposed to restore the width of the road as per the village revenue map or as envisaged by the Public Works Department. 3. The respondent GNCTD has filed a reply inter alia stating that the procedure for ascertaining encroachment on such roads is time consuming and is being done in a phased manner and that the respondent will take action for removal of encroachments as per the Masavi of all villages in Alipur Block to ascertain the width of the public roads. 4. The respondent GNCTD has filed a reply inter alia stating that the procedure for ascertaining encroachment on such roads is time consuming and is being done in a phased manner and that the respondent will take action for removal of encroachments as per the Masavi of all villages in Alipur Block to ascertain the width of the public roads. 4. This Court on 30th April, 2014 inquired from the counsel for the respondents as to within how much time all the encroachments shall be removed. On the statement of the counsel for the respondents that time of eight weeks was required for demarcation and for removal of encroachments, the matter was adjourned to today. 5. CM No.10939/2014 and 10940/2014 have been filed by one Shri Umed Singh, r/o Village and Post Office Khera Kalan, Delhi for impleadment as a party in these proceedings and for stay of the operation of the order dated 30th April, 2014 contending that the respondents, in the garb of the order dated 30th April, 2014 passed in this petition, are threatening to demolish part of the property of the applicant in Khasra No.106/474/1, village Khera Kalan, Delhi on the pretext of expanding the Road no.119, without issuing any notice to the applicant. It is further pleaded that the applicant was allotted the plot of land admeasuring 1 bigha 15 biswas in the said Khasra during the consolidation proceedings in the village. 6. Mr. Sunil Chauhan, Advocate also appears and states that he also on behalf of his client preferred applications which have not been listed. He contends that the grievance of his client is with respect to the statement made by the counsel for the respondents that the roads shall be identified as per the Masavi of the villages. It is contended that there are disputes and differences with respect to the Masavi and some of which are already pending consideration before the Revenue Courts and in those proceedings there is an order directing status quo to be maintained. He also states that the respondents, purporting to act in pursuance to this petition, are threatening to demolish the property of his client and which is not part of any public road/rasta. 7. He also states that the respondents, purporting to act in pursuance to this petition, are threatening to demolish the property of his client and which is not part of any public road/rasta. 7. The counsel for the respondents states that the process of identifying/demarcation of the roads using the Total Station Method is underway and the entire process of demarcation/identification of the roads and removal of encroachments therefrom would require a further time of two weeks. The existence of encroachments on public rasta/roads is thus admitted. 8. Mr. Sunil Chauhan, Advocate contends that the petitioner himself is an encroacher on public road. 9. In the aforesaid state of affairs, we do not deem it necessary to keep the present petition pending. The Supreme Court in Jagpal Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2011) 11 SC 396, though concerned with encroachment over common lands inhering in the village communities variously called gram sabha land, gram panchayat land, shamlat deh, mandaveli and poramboke land, Kalam, Maidan etc. has issued omnibus direction to all State Governments in the country to prepare schemes for eviction of illegal/unauthorized occupants of Gram Sabha/Gram Panchayat/Poramboke/Shamlat land and for restoration thereof to the Gram Sabha/Gram Panchayat for the common use of villagers; for this purpose the Chief Secretaries of all State Governments / Union Territories of India have been directed to do the needful. It further has been directed that the scheme evolved for the said purpose should provide for the speedy eviction of illegal occupants after giving them a show cause notice and a brief hearing. 10. We were during the hearing of another matter in the recent past informed that in compliance with the aforesaid direction of the Supreme Court, the Delhi Government has already vide Notification dated 30th March, 2011 constituted Special Task Forces for each Sub-Division of each district of Delhi, to act on information and intelligence gathered from various sources regarding encroachments and construction activities, to activate land owning agencies to protect and recover encroached lands, to initiate action against encroachers, to fence the retrieved land and to initiate prosecutions for encroachment / unauthorized construction. The said Task Forces are also required to submit regular progress report on the cases taken up (See judgment dated 26th August, 2014 in WP(C) No.3779/2014 titled All India Panchayat Parishad Vs. GNCTD). 11. The said Task Forces are also required to submit regular progress report on the cases taken up (See judgment dated 26th August, 2014 in WP(C) No.3779/2014 titled All India Panchayat Parishad Vs. GNCTD). 11. We have thus enquired from the counsel for the respondents whether the process of identification/demarcation of the public roads and removal of encroachments therefrom is within the domain of the task forces so constituted. The counsel for the respondents on instructions admits to the same. 12. We are of the opinion that since the Supreme Court has already issued the directions and in compliance whereof task forces have already been constituted, no purpose will be served in keeping this petition pending. 13. As far as the application for impleadment filed by Umed Singh and the arguments of Mr. Sunil Chauhan, Advocate are concerned, all that we can observe is that the land owning agencies are expected to act in accordance with law. We further clarify that the persons against whom the respondents take action / threaten act in pursuance to the statement made before this Court and in the process of removing encroachment from village roads, shall have remedies as available to them under the law. Needless to state that if there is any stay by any Court, restraining the respondents taking demolition /removal action with respect to any piece of land, the respondents shall be bound thereby. We however, direct the respondents to, if of the view that the stay ought not to be continued, take immediate action for vacation thereof. Needless to further state that we further expect the Revenue Courts or other Courts which are so approached by the persons against whom action is initiated by the respondents of demolition or removal will grant stay only on being satisfied of the parameters prescribed therefor and not grant the stay lightly or mechanically inasmuch as the action initiated by the respondents for removal of encroachments is in pursuance to the directions of the Supreme Court. 14. We further direct that the petitioner shall be entitled to complain directly to the concerned task force(s) so constituted for implementation of the directions contained in Jagpal Singh (supra), for removal of any encroachment, giving full particulars thereof and the respondents shall act forthwith on such information supplied by the petitioner. 15. We further grant liberty to Mr. 14. We further direct that the petitioner shall be entitled to complain directly to the concerned task force(s) so constituted for implementation of the directions contained in Jagpal Singh (supra), for removal of any encroachment, giving full particulars thereof and the respondents shall act forthwith on such information supplied by the petitioner. 15. We further grant liberty to Mr. Sunil Chauhan, Advocate’s client or any other person to similarly give information to the concerned task force of the encroachment if any done by the petitioner. If the petitioner is found to be himself an encroacher, the action for removal of such encroachment by the petitioner be taken in the first instance. Otherwise, the respondents are ordered to be bound by their statement to complete the work of identification / demarcation of public roads in the villages aforesaid, particularly the roads mentioned hereinabove and of removal of encroachments therefrom within two weeks. 16. With the aforesaid directions, the petition is disposed of.