Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Shri Varni Digamber Jain Gurukul vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 July, 2015

                                   1




            W.P.No.14159/2006, CONC No.353/2011,
W.P.No.3440/2012, W.P.No.4731/2014, W.P.No.1742/2015


06.07.2015


W.P.No.14159/2006
      Petitioner Satish Kumar Verma in person.
      Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, Deputy Advocate General for the
respondents-State.

Heard counsel for the parties.

The substantive relief claimed in this petition filed as Public Interest Litigation is, essentially, to direct the respondents to conduct demarcation of stated land so as to identify the illegal structures/encroachments on the Government land and further to proceed against the illegal structures/encroachments in accordance with law with utmost dispatch. These are the principal reliefs claimed in the petition as filed.

In response to the petition, Authorities have filed reply- affidavit pointing out that demarcation process has been completed in respect of the stated area and the illegal structures/encroachment found on the Government land have since been removed except 6 structures in respect of which matter is sub-judice. As and when those proceedings are decided, appropriate action can be taken even against those 6 structures as well.

In the light of this response, we do not wish to keep the petition pending in this Court. The grievance of the petitioner, however, is that the response filed before this Court is not accurate. There are other illegal structures and encroachment still found on the said Government land.

If the grievance of the petitioner is about inappropriate demarcation, he is free to take recourse to remedy provided under the M.P. Land Revenue Code in that behalf. If the grievance of the petitioner is that there are still some structures standing on the Government land which are not authorized, the petitioner is free to approach the Collector, who is competent to proceed against the said structures, provided the petitioner is able to substantiate that the given structures are unauthorized. Whether the structures identified by the petitioner are authorized or unauthorized, is a matter of inquiry, to be done by the Collector on case to case basis; and then proceed in accordance with law. If that decision of the Collector is not acceptable to the petitioner in its entirety or in part, the petitioner is free to take up that matter also by way of appropriate proceeding. In such proceedings, the grievance of the petitioner specific to structures/encroachment can be meaningfully and effectively addressed.

It is not possible for this Court to undertake a roving inquiry merely by doubting the stand taken by the Authorities even though on affidavit, as is the attempt made by the petitioner to persuade this Court to continue with the present 3 proceeding. All grievances of the petitioner, as aforesaid, can be redressed by the Collector, if made. The Collector shall decide the matter not later than four weeks from the receipt of the representation from the petitioner or any other person, after giving due opportunity to all concerned and pass appropriate orders, as may be permissible in law. We may not be understood to have expressed any opinion either way on matters relevant for such proceedings. All those questions are left open.

Petition disposed of accordingly.

Petitioner in person.

In view of the order passed in W.P.No.14159/2006, we do not think it necessary to precipitate the issue of contempt. The contempt notices be treated as dropped. However, it is made clear that if the petitioner makes grievance to the Collector that unauthorized structures/encroachment have still not been removed by any Government Official(s) and that stand is accepted, the Court may consider of reviving this action if the petitioner places that finding recorded by the Collector on record alongwith affidavit.

Disposed of accordingly.

Shri Saurabh Sahni, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, Deputy Advocate General for the respondents-State.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this petition has become infructuous. Disposed of accordingly.

Shri Saurabh Sahni, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, Deputy Advocate General for the respondents-State.

Heard counsel for the parties.

This petition takes exception to the order dated 06.03.2014 passed by the Trial Court in Civil Suit No. 23-A/2013. While entertaining this petition, this Court has granted interim relief in favour of the petitioner on 09.04.2014 to the effect that the Trial Court shall not pass any interim order or final judgment on merits in the said suit. In other words, the application for interim relief filed by the petitioner is still pending before the Trial Court.

In W.P.No.14159/2006 (PIL) it has come on record that the Competent Authority has already completed the demarcation of Government land. If the offending structure(s) of the petitioner is standing on the Government land, he may have to substantiate the fact that the same is authorized and constructed with prior permission or at best it can be regularized as per the extant Regulations by virtue of amendment to M.P. Land Revenue Code. These are all matters to be considered by the Trial Court in the first instance, if raised, where the suit filed by the petitioner is pending.

We accordingly dispose of this writ petition with direction to the Trial Court to decide the stay application filed by the petitioner not later than two weeks from receipt of copy of this order, either from the petitioner or through the Registry of this Court, whichever is earlier. The petitioner through counsel assures to extend full cooperation for early disposal of the interim application as well as the suit. That undertaking is taken on record.

The Trial Court shall bear in mind that Public Interest Litigation was filed before this Court for issuing direction to the Competent Authority to take steps to remove all the unauthorized structures/encroachment on the stated Government land. Further, it may be essential to bear in mind that assurance has been given by the Competent Authority on affidavit before this Court that as soon as the suit proceeding filed by the occupants of 6 structures, against whom action could not be taken, is decided one way or the other, appropriate action will be taken against all concerned. Hence, the Trial Court must decide not only the interim relief application filed by the petitioner, expeditiously, but also the main suit itself.

Petition is disposed of accordingly without expressing any opinion on the merits of the controversy involved in the suit.

Copy of this order be forwarded to the concerned Court for information and necessary action.

Shri Rajendra Tiwari, Senior Advocate with Shri H.K. Upadhyay, Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, Deputy Advocate General for the respondents-State.

Heard counsel for the parties.

In this petition, the challenge is essentially to the order of demarcation and eviction passed by the Tehsildar. As regards demarcation - the petitioner has carried the matter in appeal before the Sub Divisional Magistrate. That appeal is still pending. The petitioner is relying on the demarcation document available with the petitioner, purportedly issued on 03.06.1990. Whether that document can be taken into account or otherwise, is a matter to be decided in the appeal. The petitioner is free to point out the said position before the Appellate Authority, which will have to consider all aspects on its own merits in accordance with law. The order, which is impugned in this writ petition, is passed by the Board of Revenue dated 22.01.2015 declining to grant the interim relief as the appeal is still pending before the Sub Divisional Magistrate.

Taking overall view of the matter and considering the fact that Public Interest Litigation being W.P.No.14159/2006, which was heard analogously today and has been disposed of, the petitioner is free to pursue such remedies as may be permissible under law against the order of demarcation or 7 notice of eviction. If the land, on which the structure belonging to the petitioner is standing, is not a Government land, which fact will depend on the answer to be given by the Sub Divisional Magistrate in the appeal proceeding against the demarcation done by the Tehsildar, therefore, we, direct the Sub Divisional Magistrate (Appellate Authority) to expedite the hearing of appeal and to decide the same not later than 8 weeks from today after giving due opportunity to all concerned. Until such time no coercive action be resorted to in respect of structure in possession of the petitioner-Trust or persons claiming through the petitioner.

The petitioner through counsel undertakes to extend full cooperation for early disposal of the appeal proceeding.

Counsel for the respondents-State reiterates that the petitioner-Trust has constructed structures on the Government land on the erroneous assumption that said land belongs to the petitioner-Trust. Inasmuch as in the demarcation recently done by the Authority, the said structures are found to be on the Government land. It is not necessary for us to examine this contention and moreso because the issue regarding correctness of the demarcation must be examined by the Sub Divisional Magistrate as Appellate Authority in the first instance. All these aspects may have to be considered on its own merits by the concerned Authority and are kept open to be decided in accordance with law.

We, therefore, accept the submission of the petitioner 8 that until the issue of demarcation is finally decided by the Appellate Authority within 8 weeks, the structures belonging to the petitioner-Trust be protected. We accordingly, direct that no coercive action be taken against 6 shops referred to in Tehsildar's order dated 08.01.2015 for a period of 8 weeks from today.

Petition disposed of accordingly.

          (A.M. Khanwilkar)                        (K.K.Trivedi)
            Chief Justice                             Judge
shukla