Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 208 (HP)

Bohri Devi v. State of H. P.

2021-04-01

RAVI MALIMATH

body2021
JUDGMENT : RAVI MALIMATH, J. 1. The case of the petitioners is that they are permanent residents of the State of Himachal Pradesh. That they belong to the lowest strata of the society. They are considered to be semi nomadic ethnic group, which in local language is called as Bangali. That they have been residing, surviving and making their livelihood for a number of years. Presently, the State of Himachal Pradesh, through various proceedings is attempting to vacate the petitioners from the possession of their lands/homes. That even though the petitioners are in unauthorized occupation of the Government and other lands belonging to the State, the petitioners are entitled to protection of their life and liberty as guaranteed under the Constitution of India. It is, therefore, pleaded that the State Government be directed to provide adequate shelter and other basic amenities to them. That the eviction of the petitioners from their respective homes would bring them down to the streets. 2. The State of Himachal Pradesh through their statement of reply have countered the plea of the petitioners. They submit that some of the petitioners are not what they claim to be. That some of them have constructed Pucca houses, some of them own vehicles and are also owners of various properties. Therefore, their plea that they belong to the lowest strata of society, may not be correct. The proceedings have also been initiated under law to evict these persons since they are in possession of Government land. All action initiated by the State are purely in accordance with law. 3. On hearing learned counsels, I am of the considered view that appropriate interference is called for. It is needless to state that it is the duty of the State to ensure that the right of livelihood of these petitioners is protected. The question whether they are in unauthorized occupation of Government land or otherwise are matters of fact. It is also a matter of fact that the petitioners require to receive adequate protection from the State in order to live a humane life. On the other hand is also the requirement of law that the Government protects public property belonging to the State. It is also a matter of fact that the petitioners require to receive adequate protection from the State in order to live a humane life. On the other hand is also the requirement of law that the Government protects public property belonging to the State. Therefore, keeping in mind the interest of not only the petitioners and similarly placed persons but also the protection of public property, it is only just and necessary to reiterate the duty of the State towards its citizens. It is for this reason that I deem it just and appropriate that the petitioners and similarly placed persons may make a representation to the State Government, culling out the difficulties faced by them and as to the relief that they seek at the hands of the State. It is only then that the State could be expected to react to such a situation and to offer a solution within the four corners of law. So far as the proceedings of eviction initiated against the petitioners is concerned, I am prima facie of the view that the State Government should not be allowed to proceed further in the matter till a final decision is taken with regard to the rehabilitation or otherwise of the writ petitioners. I do not find any urgency for the State Government to proceed further and evict the petitioners. Therefore, for the interregnum, until the State Government takes a decision in this matter, the petitioners may continue to remain and the status quo may continue till then. 4. Under these circumstances, the petitioners as well as similarly placed persons may file appropriate representations before the State Government seeking adequate relief. The State Government to consider the same in accordance with law. The representations, if any, shall be filed before the State as expeditiously as possible, within a period of six months. State to consider the same thereafter. Until and unless any decision is taken, the petitioners shall continue to remain undisturbed over the possession on their huts. Petition is disposed off accordingly.