Regularization of unauthorized occupation of government land cannot be claimed as a matter of right, especially when public interest is involved, and applications must be evaluated based on the law in effect at the time of their consideration.

JUDGMENT

1. All these three petitions are by the same person, who in substance seeks a direction for the regularization of the alleged unauthorized occupation of the land in question, after setting aside certain endorsement that arguably comes in the way of her retaining the said land.

2. THE GIST OF THREE WRIT PETITIONS IS AS UNDER:

i) The first case i.e., W.P.No.9739/2022 is filed on 17/5/2022. The prayer is for the quashment of a Show Cause Notice dtd. 22/2/2022 whereby the Petitioner has been asked to quit the Government land admeasuring about 35 guntas in Sy.No.1, Kargal Village in Sagara Taluka. He has also sought for consideration of his claim for regularization and further, a prohibition against demolition of his dwelling house in and eviction from the land.

ii) The second case i.e., W.P.No.24507/2022 is filed on 6/12/2022. The prayer is for the quashment of proceedings in Case No.LND 131/2022 filed by the 4th respondent-Joga Management Authority against the Petitioner and officials.

iii) The third case i.e., W.P.No.25120/2022 is filed on 12/12/2022. The prayer is for the quashment of Grant Order dtd. 17/11/2015 passed by the 2nd RespondentDeputy Commissioner whereby the Government land admeasuring 3A-24G has been earmarked for the respondent-Joga Management Authority, for the purpose of vehicle parking.

3. The official Respondents are represented by the learned AGA. The private Respondent-contractor having got himself impleaded in W.P.No.9739/2022, is represented by his private counsel. Both they resist the Writ Petition contending that the land being situate within the specified radius, does not admit regularization of unauthorized occupation, as the law now stands; Petitioner is in the unauthorized occupation of only about 34 guntas of the land in question; her claim in respect of larger extent is factually untrue & legally untenable; even otherwise, the earmarking of land for the Joga Management Authority is in public interest and therefore, Petitioner's private interest, if any, has to yield to the same. The entries in the Revenue Records apart from being unauthorized, do not support Petitioner's claim and that they do not enjoy presumptive validity. Regularization of unauthorized occupancy of the Government land cannot be sought for as a matter of right, the promulgation of Rules in that regard, notwithstanding. So contending, they seek dismissal of the Writ Petitions.

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the Petition Papers, this Court grants a limited indulgence in the matter as under and for the following reasons:

(a) Admittedly, the land belongs to the Government and the Petitioner claims to be in the unauthorized cultivation of the same. Legally speaking, regularization of unauthorized occupancy cannot be sought for, as a matter of right to the prejudice of larger public interest. The impugned notice dtd. 22/2/2022 asks the Petitioner to quit the subject land i.e., about 34 Guntas failing which she is threatened with legal action. When the application for regularization is pending consideration on the file of the Respondent-Statutory Committee, the notice of the kind could not have been issued and therefore, the same is liable to be voided, as rightly argued by learned counsel for the Petitioner.

(b) The vehement submission of learned counsel for the Petitioner that earlier, his client was in the occupation of 34 Guntas and later, it enhanced to 2 Acres and further to 4 Acres as her family bulged, cannot be countenanced inasmuch as the decision to widen the family is taken in the autonomy of the individual concerned. In matters like this, the State does not owe any duty to proportionately award a bigger larges on that ground. The fortuitous enlargement of the family cannot be the basis for according a larger larges of the State. An argument to the contrary amounts to placing premium on the violation of long standing State Policy of Family Planning such as 'chikka kutumba, chok