Delhi High Court
Pavit Singh vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 17 October, 2019
$~6
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 17th October, 2019
+ W.P.(CRL) 3411/2017
PAVIT SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Kanika Sood, Adv.
versus
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Anupam S. Sharma, SPP-CBI
with Mr. P. Airan and Mr. Eric Karan Sharma,
Advs.
Mr. Gautam Narayan, ASC-GNCTD with Ms.
Shivani Vij and
Ms. Dacchita Shahi, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR
ORDER
% 17.10.2019
D.N. PATEL, CHIEF JUSTICE (ORAL)
W.P.(CRL) 3411/2017
1. This Public Interest Litigation has been preferred with the
following prayers :
"i. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction to the
Central Bureau of Investigation to register a complaint
in respect of the facts stated in the present Petitioner in
relation to encroachment of land in the forest areas of
Maidangarhi, Neb Sarai, etc. and investigate the matter
thoroughly to determine the involvement of officials of
various department of the Govt. of NCT of Delhi as well
as land / building mafia and take all steps in furtherance
of such investigation required in law and in the interest
of justice;
ii. Pass any such other further orders as this Hon'ble
Court deems fit in the interests of justice and equity."
2. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking at the
facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the main grievances
ventilated in this writ petition are about large scale encroachment and
unauthorised construction in reserved forest areas of Maidangarhi, Neb
Sarai etc. for which investigation may be carried out by the Central
Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
3. We have heard learned counsel for the respondents who submitted
that one matter is already pending before National Green Tribunal (NGT)
bearing no. OA 58/2013 titled Somya Ghosh v. GNCTD & Ors., and as
per the directions passed from time to time by the NGT, there is
compliance thereof especially of the demarcation process. It is submitted
by counsel for the respondents that for southern ridge, most of the work
of demarcation is over. Once such type of demarcation is over, actions
for removal of the encroachment can be initiated in accordance with law.
4. In view of the aforesaid submissions and also looking at the facts
and circumstances of the case, it appears that there are allegations about
large scale encroachment and unauthorised construction for which the
petitioner is seeking investigation by CBI. This prayer cannot be
accepted by this Court mainly for the reasons stated herein below :
(a) Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court cannot
presume, on the basis of vague and uncorroborated averments, that any
particular construction is unauthorised.
To establish the unauthorised construction, cogent and convincing
evidence should be given. Notices are to be given and hearing ought to
have taken place.
(b) Upon general allegation that there is a large scale encroachment
and unauthorised construction, it is not sufficient for giving investigation
to the CBI.
(c) It appears from the facts of the case that the demarcation process as
stated hereinabove for the forest area is going on, therefore, respondents
cannot take immediate action for the removal of the encroachments on
the basis of general allegations.
(d) However, if any particular case of encroachment is brought to the
notice of the concerned authority, in such individual case, the action can
be initiated by the respondents.
5. In view of the above, we hereby direct the respondents to remove
the encroachments from the forest area as stated in the memo of this
petition in accordance with law, rules, regulations and Government policy
applicable to the facts of the case and after giving an adequate
opportunity of being heard to the owner/occupier of the superstructure.
6. With these observations, this writ petition is hereby disposed of.
CHIEF JUSTICE
C.HARI SHANKAR, J.
OCTOBER 17, 2019/kr
