IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
DEEPAK KUMAR TIWARI, J.
Arun Kumar Keshri S/o. Radheshyam Keshri & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Station House Officer, Police Station, Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh - Respondent
CRA No. 1724 of 2022
Decided On : 17-04-2023
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Section 14-A - Indian Penal Code,1860 - Sections 186, 332, 353, 34 - CG Land Revenue Code - Section 248 - Grant of anticipatory Bail - Obstructing public servant in discharge of public functions Committing voluntary harm or hurt to a public servant in order to deter him from doing his duties - Held, it is expected from State to ensure that periodically at least once in a year concerned - After making survey - Whenever encroachment of Government land comes to his notice shall send a report to the concerned Tahsildar for taking appropriate steps expeditiously - In turn Tahsildar shall draw proceeding Section 248 of Code and while passing order not only impose fine but simultaneously shall also pass an order against person who shall be liable at discretion of Tahsildar to pay rent of land for period of his unauthorised occupation at twice rate admissible for land in a locality - Further matter shall be reported to concerned SDO (Revenue) if any person continues in unauthorized occupation or possession of land for more than seven days after the date of order of ejectment - Order Accordingly.
ORDER :
1. The appellants have preferred this appeal under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short “the S.C./S.T. Act”), for grant of anticipatory bail, since they are apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No.263/2022 registered at Police Station Ramanujganj, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (CG) for the offence punishable under Sections 186, 332, 353, 34 of the IPC ad Section 3(1) ¼n½, 3(1) ¼/k½ of the S.C./S.T. Act.
2. Prosecution case, in brief, is that Deepak Ekka, Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Ramanujganj, in pursuance of the order(s) passed by the Tehsildar/Executive Magistrate, Ramanujganj for removal of encroachment made by the appellants in Nazul Plot No.950 admeasuring area 0.0½ hectares, proceeded along with the team of the Tehsildar, Ramanujganj to the said place. The appellants were duly informed about the order passed by the Tehsildar, Ramunujganj orally as also through the mobile phone and a request was made by them to remove the encroachment However, the appellants resisted and obstructed the official work and also used filthy language against the officers and his team and pushed them. The video clip of such incident was prepared, however, due to the obstruction caused by the appellants, the encroachment could not be removed. Based on such allegations, the aforesaid offence under the IPC has been registered. Later on, since the complainant belongs to the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe category, the offence under Section 3(1) ¼n½, 3(1) ¼/k½ of the S.C./ST. Act has also been added.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the appellants were in possession of the encroached land bearing plot No.950/2 admeasuring area 10 x 15 = 150 sq. ft. situated at Ramanujganj for many decades by constructing small shop over the said land. Earlier, an encroachment case was registered against the appellants and a penalty of Rs.500/- was imposed on them in the year 1998-99. Thereafter, in the year 2009, again an encroachment proceeding was initiated against appellant No.1 Arun Kumar Keshari and a penalty of Rs.200/- was imposed on him and an eviction order was also passed on 18.8.2009 under Section 248 of the CG Land Revenue Code (in short “the Code”). Inspite of such eviction order, the appellants continued in unauthorised possession of the subject property. Later on, as per the policy promulgated by the State vide Circular dated 11.9.2019 for settlement of the Government land in favour of persons, who are in possession of the said land prior to 20.8.2017, the appellants preferred an application for settlement of the land in terms of the policy on 17.7.2020. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that on such application filed by the appellants, the Revenue Inspector, Nazul Ramanujganj, after inspection of the spot, prepared a calculation sheet and found that the appellants have encroached upon some Nazul land and hence, recommended for its settlement as per the said policy. However, since the competent authority did not pass any order on the application filed by appellant No.1, he approached this Court by filing WPC No.2039/2022, in which, vide order dated 28.4.2022, the competent authority was directed to decide the application preferred by the appellant on 17.7.2020, taking note of the documents submitted by him as also the enquiry report submitted by the Revenue Inspector on 20.12.2020 before the Nazul Officer. It was also directed that the proceeding with regard to allotment be concluded expeditiously within a stipulated time. He further submits that in pursuance of such direction issued by this Court, the matter was taken up before the Nazul Adhikhari, Ramanujganj, who dismissed the application of the appellant vide impugned order dated 18.7.2022. He submits that since the order dated 18.7.2022 was not passed strictly in accordance with law, again a challenge was made before the High Court vide WPC No.4129/2022 and a
Encroachment on government land is a criminal trespass that necessitates prompt state action, emphasizing public trust in land management and the prioritization of communal rights over private claims....
Point of Law : Amended provisions of Rule 18 (2) of the Settlement Rules does not mandate issuance of any notice upon persons coming in the ambit of the said sub-rule. The petitioner are admittedly i....
Only the designated authority under the Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment Act can initiate eviction proceedings, and unauthorized occupants cannot claim legal rights to public land.
Eviction orders concerning disputed land must defer to ongoing civil proceedings, establishing land ownership is a matter for the civil court, not administrative authorities.
Possession alone does not confer entitlement to government land; prior rejections of settlement applications by the state are binding.
Unauthorized constructions must be removed within a specified period, and individuals can approach the authorities for grant of patta for government poramboke land.
Unauthorized occupation of government land cannot create rights, and mere communal use does not justify settlement under the OPLE Act, especially when the land is earmarked for public developmental p....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.