Satish Rana vs Lt. Governor Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors
2014 Latest Caselaw 3930 Del

           *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                    Date of decision: 27th August, 2014

+                       W.P.(C) No. 1938/2014

SATISH RANA                                                  ..... Petitioner
                          Through:      Mr. Varun Nischal , Advs.

                                     Versus

LT. GOVERNOR OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS           ..... Respondents

Through: Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Adv. for GNCTD.

Mr. K.N. Popli, Adv for applicant.

Mr. Sunil Chauhan, Adv. for Intervenors

CORAM:-

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW

1. This petition filed as a public interest litigation complains of inaction of

the respondents namely the Government of NCT of Delhi, District Collector

(North), Gaon Sabha, Village Khera Kalan and Police in removal of

encroachments on public roads in the villages of Alipur, Holambi, Naya Bans,

Nangli, Prahladpur, Shahbad, Khera Khurd, Khera Kalan in Delhi and seeks a

direction to the respondents to remove all such encroachments on public roads,

particularly on:-

i. Road No. 119 of 41.25 ft width starting from village Prahladpur

to Khera Kalan, Delhi;

ii. Road No. 136 to 139 of 82.5 ft width starting from village

Nangli Poona to village Khera Kalan;

iii. Road No.122 (Badshahi Road) of 66 ft. width provide

connectivity to road No.136;

iv. Road of 24.75 ft width starting from village Khera Kalan via

village Bhudhpur to Alipur;

v. Internal Road No.337 of 16.5 ft width within the abadi of village

Khera Kalan, Delhi;

vi. Gali known as Balle Pradhan Wali Gali of 41.25 ft width within

village Khera Kalan,Delhi;

vii. Firni Road No. 110 of 41.25 ft width of village Khera Kalan; and

viii. Road No. 44 of 24.75 ft width of village Khera Kalan, Delhi

and to restore the said roads to the original condition.

2. The petition came up first before this Court on 26 th March, 2014 when

the counsel for the respondents appearing on advance notice stated that he

would obtain instructions "with reference to the Masavi of all villages in Alipur

Block" and would ascertain the width of the public roads and particularly of the

ones to which reference is made in the prayer clause of the writ petition. This

Court vide the same order also directed the counsel for the respondent to obtain

instructions that if encroachment existed on the said roads, what action was

proposed to restore the width of the road as per the village revenue map or as

envisaged by the Public Works Department.

3. The respondent GNCTD has filed a reply inter alia stating that the

procedure for ascertaining encroachment on such roads is time consuming and

is being done in a phased manner and that the respondent will take action for

removal of encroachments as per the Masavi of all villages in Alipur Block to

ascertain the width of the public roads.

4. This Court on 30th April, 2014 inquired from the counsel for the

respondents as to within how much time all the encroachments shall be

removed. On the statement of the counsel for the respondents that time of eight

weeks was required for demarcation and for removal of encroachments, the

matter was adjourned to today.

5. CM No.10939/2014 and 10940/2014 have been filed by one Shri Umed

Singh, r/o Village and Post Office Khera Kalan, Delhi for impleadment as a

party in these proceedings and for stay of the operation of the order dated 30th

April, 2014 contending that the respondents, in the garb of the order dated 30th

April, 2014 passed in this petition, are threatening to demolish part of the

property of the applicant in Khasra No.106/474/1, village Khera Kalan, Delhi

on the pretext of expanding the Road no.119, without issuing any notice to the

applicant. It is further pleaded that the applicant was allotted the plot of land

admeasuring 1 bigha 15 biswas in the said Khasra during the consolidation

proceedings in the village.

6. Mr. Sunil Chauhan, Advocate also appears and states that he also on

behalf of his client preferred applications which have not been listed. He

contends that the grievance of his client is with respect to the statement made

by the counsel for the respondents that the roads shall be identified as per the

Masavi of the villages. It is contended that there are disputes and differences

with respect to the Masavi and some of which are already pending

consideration before the Revenue Courts and in those proceedings there is an

order directing status quo to be maintained. He also states that the respondents,

purporting to act in pursuance to this petition, are threatening to demolish the

property of his client and which is not part of any public road/rasta.

7. The counsel for the respondents states that the process of

identifying/demarcation of the roads using the Total Station Method is

underway and the entire process of demarcation/identification of the roads and

removal of encroachments therefrom would require a further time of two

weeks. The existence of encroachments on public rasta/roads is thus admitted.

8. Mr. Sunil Chauhan, Advocate contends that the petitioner himself is an

encroacher on public road.

9. In the aforesaid state of affairs, we do not deem it necessary to keep the

present petition pending. The Supreme Court in Jagpal Singh Vs. State of

Punjab (2011) 11 SC 396, though concerned with encroachment over common

lands inhering in the village communities variously called gram sabha land,

gram panchayat land, shamlat deh, mandaveli and poramboke land, Kalam,

Maidan etc. has issued omnibus direction to all State Governments in the

country to prepare schemes for eviction of illegal/unauthorized occupants of

Gram Sabha/Gram Panchayat/Poramboke/Shamlat land and for restoration

thereof to the Gram Sabha/Gram Panchayat for the common use of villagers;

for this purpose the Chief Secretaries of all State Governments / Union

Territories of India have been directed to do the needful. It further has been

directed that the scheme evolved for the said purpose should provide for the

speedy eviction of illegal occupants after giving them a show cause notice and

a brief hearing.

10. We were during the hearing of another matter in the recent past

informed that in compliance with the aforesaid direction of the Supreme Court,

the Delhi Government has already vide Notification dated 30th March, 2011

constituted Special Task Forces for each Sub-Division of each district of Delhi,

to act on information and intelligence gathered from various sources regarding

encroachments and construction activities, to activate land owning agencies to

protect and recover encroached lands, to initiate action against encroachers, to

fence the retrieved land and to initiate prosecutions for encroachment /

unauthorized construction. The said Task Forces are also required to submit

regular progress report on the cases taken up (See judgment dated 26th August,

2014 in WP(C) No.3779/2014 titled All India Panchayat Parishad Vs.

GNCTD).

11. We have thus enquired from the counsel for the respondents whether the

process of identification/demarcation of the public roads and removal of

encroachments therefrom is within the domain of the task forces so constituted.

The counsel for the respondents on instructions admits to the same.

12. We are of the opinion that since the Supreme Court has already issued

the directions and in compliance whereof task forces have already been

constituted, no purpose will be served in keeping this petition pending.

13. As far as the application for impleadment filed by Umed Singh and the

arguments of Mr. Sunil Chauhan, Advocate are concerned, all that we can

observe is that the land owning agencies are expected to act in accordance with

law. We further clarify that the persons against whom the respondents take

action / threaten act in pursuance to the statement made before this Court and in

the process of removing encroachment from village roads, shall have remedies

as available to them under the law. Needless to state that if there is any stay by

any Court, restraining the respondents taking demolition /removal action with

respect to any piece of land, the respondents shall be bound thereby. We

however, direct the respondents to, if of the view that the stay ought not to be

continued, take immediate action for vacation thereof. Needless to further state

that we further expect the Revenue Courts or other Courts which are so

approached by the persons against whom action is initiated by the respondents

of demolition or removal will grant stay only on being satisfied of the

parameters prescribed therefor and not grant the stay lightly or mechanically

inasmuch as the action initiated by the respondents for removal of

encroachments is in pursuance to the directions of the Supreme Court.

14. We further direct that the petitioner shall be entitled to complain directly

to the concerned task force(s) so constituted for implementation of the

directions contained in Jagpal Singh (supra), for removal of any encroachment,

giving full particulars thereof and the respondents shall act forthwith on such

information supplied by the petitioner.

15. We further grant liberty to Mr. Sunil Chauhan, Advocate‟s client or any

other person to similarly give information to the concerned task force of the

encroachment if any done by the petitioner. If the petitioner is found to be

himself an encroacher, the action for removal of such encroachment by the

petitioner be taken in the first instance. Otherwise, the respondents are ordered

to be bound by their statement to complete the work of identification /

demarcation of public roads in the villages aforesaid, particularly the roads

mentioned hereinabove and of removal of encroachments therefrom within two

weeks.

16. With the aforesaid directions, the petition is disposed of.

CHIEF JUSTICE

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J AUGUST 27, 2014 „M‟..