Bhigya Jamlal Chavan vs The State Of Maharashtra
2021 Latest Caselaw 17069 Bom

                                                                  3181.20wp
                                  (1)

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                 BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                   907 WRIT PETITION NO.3181 OF 2020

                  BAIGYA JAMLAL CHAVAN
                             VERSUS
       THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
                                ...
 Mr S. S. Thombre, Advocate for petitioner;
 Mr D. R. Kale, G.P. for respondent Nos.1 to 6;
 Mr S. C. Swami, Advocate for respondent No.7

                               CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE
                                             AND
                                       S. G. MEHARE, JJ.

DATE : 8th December, 2021

PER COURT:

1. We have briefly heard the learned Advocate for the

petitioner, the learned Government Pleader on behalf of the

respondents/State and the learned Advocate for respondent No.7.

2. The learned Government Pleader makes a serious grievance

as regards a project being stalled, though the encroachments were

removed and by recording the said statement on 03/03/2020,

status-quo was directed to be maintained by this Court.

Thereafter, the petitioner and his accomplice/encroachers have

again occupied 'Gairan' land and have tried to erect their huts.

3181.20wp

The learned Government Pleader submits that a case of Contempt

of Court is surely made out.

3. The learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that there

are several families along with him. Though they are

encroachers, they have occupied the land for more than 40 years.

They cannot be removed from the said land as the Government

has a scheme for regularization of encroachments on Government

lands.

4. The learned Government Pleader submits that such request

for regularisation of encroachment has already been rejected by

the District Collector vide order dated 06/12/2007.

5. We find that, even if the case of the petitioner is taken at it's

best, he may be entitled for regularization of the encroachment

and if such regularization of encroached lands is a part of a

project, the petitioner may be entitled to compensation.

6. We also find that there is a scheme called as the 'Gharkul

Yojana' and the Project Officer, Integrated Adivasi Development

Project', Aurangabad has written to one such similar encroacher

3181.20wp

to come forward with documents so as to consider the case for

allotment of a home.

7. Be that as it may, considering the law laid down by the

Hon'ble Apex Court in Jagpal Singh & ors. Vs. State of Punjab

& ors., (2011) 11 Supreme Court Cases 396, a public project

cannot be stalled. Several judgments have been delivered by the

Hon'ble Apex Court after Jagpal Singh case, indicating that the

Court should be extremely slow in stalling a public project by

passing injunctory orders.

8. In the peculiar facts as recorded above, we call upon the

learned Government Pleader to take instructions as to whether,

purely for the time being and as an interim measure, the petitioner

had similarly situated encroacher in the land at issue in this

petition, are relocated to any portion of Government land in the

vicinity, so that they would not be thrown on the streets and at the

same time, a public project could go ahead. We also add that such

re-location as an interim measure would be subject to the pending

claim of the petitioner in this petition, for regularization of the

encroachment and no rights or equities would be created in favour

of the petitioner or similarly situated persons.

3181.20wp

9. We are listing this petition on 17/12/2021 in the urgent

category.

(S. G. MEHARE, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)

sjk