Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shrikant Shukla vs Shri Lal Bahadur Jaiswal on 4 December, 2019
Author: Sanjay Yadav
Bench: Sanjay Yadav
1 Conc.No.3562/2018
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Conc.No.3562/2018
(Shrikant Shukla vs. Lal Bahadur Jaiswal & ors.)
Jabalpur, Dated : 04/12/2019.
Shri Ashok Lalwani, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Prashant Singh, learned Senior counsel with
Ms.Vineeta Sharma, learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2.
Ms. Kanak Gaharwar, learned counsel for respondent No.3.
Alleging willful disobedience of order dated 20.11.2014 passed in Writ Petition: 14979/2014 and Writ Petition:
16957/2014, petitioner has filed this petition seeking action against the respondents.
The writ petition: 14979/2014 and Writ Petition:
16957/2014 at the instance of one Samay Prasad Kol and Lal Bahadur Jaiswal & another respectively were in respect of alleged encroachment over land belonging to South Eastern Coal Fields Limited; whereon, the Estate Officer proceeded against respondents therein.
That by order dated 20.11.2014, the petition was disposed of in the following terms:
"Considering the fact that the demarcation of the land in question has been done by the competent Authority in terms of the order dated 11.11.2014 and which now resolves the controversy about the exact location of the structures allegedly owned and possessed by the petitioner No.2 and as it has been noticed that the same is standing on the land belonging to South Eastern Coalfields Limited, the Estate Officer must proceed against the said structures forthwith in accordance with law and report compliance in that behalf within one week from today.2 Conc.No.3562/2018
Counsel for the petitioners did make a feeble attempt to persuade the Court that the demarcation has not been done in a proper manner. However, we are not impressed by the said objection taken by the petitioners. No malafide is alleged against the Revenue Officers, who have done the demarcation of the land. They are independent persons.
The demarcation having been done by the Revenue Officers and the factual position has been contemporaneously noted in the official record, there is legal presumption that the same has been done in the ordinary course of business.
As aforesaid, we are not impressed by the objection taken by the petitioners, which is, to say the least, an argument of desperation.
We place on record the statement made by the counsel for the respondents that in fact the petitioners have removed the windows and doors of the structure in question, now identified to be standing on the land owned and possessed by the S.E.C.L., consequent to the demarcation made by the Revenue Authorities. The counsel for the petitioners, however, disputed that position but could not resist in admitting that some of the windows and doors of the structure in question have already been removed by the petitioners.
Be that as it may, the Estate Officer of S.E.C.L. must proceed against the unauthorised structures at the earliest and report compliance within one week from today.
We reiterate the position stated on the earlier occasion that the police Authorities must extend complete logistical support to the Estate Officer in execution of eviction/demolition order. The Superintendent of Police, Annuppur shall be personally responsible to comply with this observation.
List these matters for reporting compliance on 01.12.2014 under caption "Direction".
After the order was dictated, counsel for the petitioners prayed that the petitioners be given some 3 Conc.No.3562/2018 time to vacate the premises on their own and to remove the unauthorised structures.
We told the learned counsel that, that indulgence can be shown only if the petitioners were to file written undertaking stating that they will vacate the premises in question, unconditionally and also remove the structure within one month from today at their own costs.
Learned counsel for the petitioners, on instructions of petitioner No.1, who is present in the Court, submits that both the petitioners are willing to file such undertaking within two days from today. He further submits that the petitioner No.1 who is present in Court will file his affidavit of undertaking today itself. The assurance given by the learned counsel for the petitioners on instructions of the petitioners is accepted.
In view of this assurance, the respondents shall take action in accordance with law, after expiry of one month from today if all the petitioners file their individual affidavit or undertaking within two days from today. If the petitioners and their family members fail to vacate the premises on their own, as per the undertaking given to the Court, failure to comply with the undertaking may also entail in proceeding against the concerned petitioners for having committed contempt of Court on account of breach of undertaking. Filing of undertaking within two days from today is the condition precedent for giving protection to the petitioners for a period of one month from today. Else, the Estate Officer to proceed in the matter forthwith after two days.
Subject to above, the petitions are disposed of as withdrawn.
We also make it clear that withdrawal of these petitions will not come in the way of the respondents to proceed for recovery of damages/compensation for unauthorised user of the public premises and including for expenses incurred for removal of the structures, as per rules, in accordance with law."
4 Conc.No.3562/2018The contention of the petitioner is that the respondents had filed an undertaking as per said order, however, did not vacate the house in question which was constructed over the land belonging to South Eastern Coalfields Limited.
On being noticed respondents have filed response whereby it is stated that the respondent preferred an SLP against the said order which was registered as SLP (c) No.36374-36375/2014 which was linked with petition for Special Leave to Appeal (c) No.34198/2014 and an interim protection was granted, however, subsequently, the said SLP was disposed of on 27.01.2016. Thereafter, respondents filed MCC No.1385/2016 seeking recalling of order dated 20.11.2014 passed in Writ Petition No.16957/2014 which was dismissed on 02.12.2016 whereagainst a Writ Petition was filed bearing registration No.14750/2017 which was dismissed as withdrawn on 10.12.2018. It is further informed that the house in question has since been demolished and encroachment has been removed.
Taking note of the fact that the encroachment in question is now removed, we decline to cause any indulgence in the matter.
Consequently, proceedings are dropped. Rule nisi discharged.
(Sanjay Yadav) (Atul Sreedharan)
Judge Judge
anand
Digitally signed by
ANAND KRISHNA SEN
Date: 2019.12.09
10:50:34 +05'30'