Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 886 (PAT)

Nurul Hoda v. State of Bihar

2015-07-03

L.NARASIMHA REDDY, SUDHIR SINGH

body2015
JUDGMENT The appellants herein have virtually rendered the functioning of the Zila Parishad, Saran as well as the users of the railway station at Dighwara miserable. It would have been a different matter in case the petitioners owned any land and were putting the land according to their wishes, even if leading to any inconvenience. It is not in dispute that they are unauthorized occupiers over the land belonging to the respondent Zila Parishad Board. Quite large extent of land between the railway station, on the one hand, and the road leading to it, on the other hand, is owned by the Zila Parishad. Since it was vacant, the petitioners have been conducting their activity by raising temporary structures. No formal lease or licence was granted to them except that they got receipts from some of the officials. The Zila Parishad intended to construct a shopping complex so that the area is beautified, on the one hand, and source of income exists for it, on the other. The petitioners were requested to hand over the land for the purposes of constructing the shopping complex. A notice was also issued to them stating that in case they vacate the existing shops, newly constructed shops would be allotted to them on preferential basis. That did not appeal to the appellants. The Zila Parishad issued a notification in the year 2003 inviting applications for allotment of shops that would be constructed on the land. It was mentioned that such of the persons who hold the receipts for payment of rent for a period of ten years would be allotted shops on preferential basis. The appellants did not respond to the same. Ultimately, the applications were received. Since the construction was not being made, in spite of submission of applications and deposit of requisite amounts, some of the respondents herein filed C.W.J.C. No.307/12 with a prayer to direct the Zila Parishad to construct the shops. The same was disposed of directing that necessary steps shall be taken to undertake the construction. The appellants preferred L.P.A. No.1926/2012 against the same. A Division Bench of this Court took the view that no such direction was issued for eviction of the appellants and they cannot be said to have any genuine cause of action. It was left open to them to challenge the notice, if issued to them. The appellants preferred L.P.A. No.1926/2012 against the same. A Division Bench of this Court took the view that no such direction was issued for eviction of the appellants and they cannot be said to have any genuine cause of action. It was left open to them to challenge the notice, if issued to them. The Zila Parishad issued notices to the appellant on 28.12.2012 requiring them to vacate the premises under their occupation. Challenging the same, the appellants filed C.W.J.C. No.339/13. During the pendency of the writ petition, a direction was issued in I.A. No.4707/13 requiring the Chief Executive Officer of the Zila Parishad to examine the claims of the appellants. In compliance with the said direction, the Chief Executive Officer passed an order taking the view that none of the appellants have any leases in their favour and some of them were paying rents intermittently. The writ petition was taken up for hearing and the learned Single Judge dismissed the same through order dated 25.4.2014. Hence, this Appeal. Heard Shri Y.V. Giri, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants, Shri Manoj Kumar Jha, learned Counsel for the State and Mr. Arun Kumar and Dr. Anand Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents. If the towns or the neighbourhoods of railway stations are presenting ugly look, it is on account of the activities of the persons who squat on the government land, and undertake activities according to their whims and fancies. If their number is substantial, they would prevent every step that is taken to beautify the area. It is a matter of common knowledge that such persons not only occupy the land but even encroach upon the road in front of the shops, thereby rendering the very movement of traffic impossible. It has already been mentioned that the Saran Zila Parishad owned considerable extent of land abutting the road near the railway station. A decade ago they intended to construct a shopping complex over the land. For that purpose, they wanted the appellants to vacate the land. The negotiations did not fructify and, ultimately, notice was issued inviting applications for allotment of the proposed shops. Though it was mentioned in the notification that preferential right would be given to the persons who are in occupation of the land, the appellants did not apply, obviously on account of their confidence that they would be successful in frustrating the project. Though it was mentioned in the notification that preferential right would be given to the persons who are in occupation of the land, the appellants did not apply, obviously on account of their confidence that they would be successful in frustrating the project. Those who responded and made certain deposits had to wait for considerable time. They approached this Court by filing writ applications. The appellants were served with notices requiring them to vacate the land. They did not even submit response and straightaway approached this Court. In the writ petition also, they did not claim any rights of ownership. However, they tried to dictate their own terms. To ascertain the nature of rights that the appellants possess over the land in their possession an interim order was passed, and the Chief Executive Officer passed a detailed order. The said order was not challenged and the findings recorded therein became final. Once the appellants do not dispute the title of the Zila Parishad, there is no way, they can resist the proceedings requiring them to vacate the land. Even where a valid lease is granted, the authorities of the Government have every right to resume the possession of the property on expiry of the lease. The question of requiring the Government to institute suit or other proceedings before a Court does not arise in such cases. In the instant case, the appellants do not have lease or licence in their favour. They did not avail the opportunity of applying and getting preferential treatment. In all fairness, learned counsel for the Zila Parishad submits that even if the appellants submit their applications now their cases would be considered on preferential basis after completion of the project, subject to availability. This did not evoke any positive response from the appellants. The Zila Parishad is entitled to resume the lands forthwith. It is not only from the point of view of income or commerce, but also in the public interest, that the shops must be constructed forthwith by evicting the unauthorized occupants, if necessary, by using force. We make it clear that the Zila Parishad shall be entitled to remove all the appellants herein from the encroachments forthwith and, if they offer resistance, the Superintendent of Police shall arrange for adequate force. To enable the appellants to remove their articles to safer places, we grant 15 days from today. We make it clear that the Zila Parishad shall be entitled to remove all the appellants herein from the encroachments forthwith and, if they offer resistance, the Superintendent of Police shall arrange for adequate force. To enable the appellants to remove their articles to safer places, we grant 15 days from today. If they do not vacate the premises by 18th of this month, the Zila Parishad shall be entitled to evict them by using force. Letters Patent Appeal is accordingly dismissed. Interlocutory application, if any, stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.