Madhya Pradesh High Court
Samay Prasad Kol vs South Eatern Coalfields Limited on 20 November, 2014
Writ Petition No.14979 of 2014
Writ Petition No.16957 of 2014
20.11.2014
Shri G.P.Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner in
Writ Petition No.14979/2014.
Shri Prashant Singh, learned counsel for the
petitioners in Writ Petition No.16957/2014.
Shri Greeshm Jain, learned counsel for the
respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3.
Shri Prashant Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No.4 in Writ Petition No.14979/2014.
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.
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 2 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, 3 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 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 4 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.
Cc as per rules.
(A.M. Khanwilkar) (Miss Vandana Kasrekar)
Chief Justice Judge
AM.
5