Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Subramonium Prasad, J.
Yamuna Bank Kishan Bachao Morcha - Appellant
Versus
State Of NCT Of Delhi & Ors. - Respondents
W.P.(Crl) 2035/2020
Decided On : 01-02-2022
Writ Petition - Land Dispute - Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 - PP Act1 - National Green Tribunal Judgments - LPA No.276/2020 - Haq v. DDA & Anr. 2013 SCC Online Del 1284 - Sakiri Basu v. State of UP, (2008) 2 SCC 409 - Priyanka Srivastava v. State of UP, (2015) 6 SCC 287
Fact of the Case:
The writ petition involves a dispute over land occupied by a society of farmers on the banks of river Yamuna. The society claimed ownership and occupation rights, alleging criminal and fraudulent acts by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) and harassment by authorities. The DDA, on the other hand, claimed ownership and issued eviction orders under the Public Premises Act. The National Green Tribunal also directed eviction of encroachers on the Yamuna floodplains.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the society members were unauthorized occupants of the land, as affirmed in previous judgments. The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that it was an abuse of the legal process and a violation of the undertaking given to the Supreme Court. The court also noted that the agricultural activities carried out by the society were in violation of the National Green Tribunal's orders.
Issues: The key issues included ownership and occupation rights over the disputed land, the validity of eviction orders under the Public Premises Act, and the violation of environmental regulations on the Yamuna floodplains.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the society members were unauthorized occupants and encroachers, as established in previous judgments. The court also emphasized that the appropriate remedy for alleged offenses was to approach the competent court under Section 156(3) of the CrPC, rather than filing a writ petition. Additionally, the court highlighted the violation of environmental regulations on the floodplains.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed with the observation that it was an abuse of the legal process and a violation of the undertaking given to the Supreme Court. No costs were imposed on the petitioner society, considering their claim as farmers.
JUDGMENT
Subramonium Prasad, J. - This writ petition has been filed with the following prayers:-
" (a) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondent No 2 to take action against the Respondent no. 3 to 9; and/or;
(b) Issue a writ, order to restrain to respondent no. 4 to 7 to take over the lands of farmers until investigation completed.
(c) Issue a writ, order to Compensation to farmers from the account of DDA to the farmer to damaging their full grown crops.
(d) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may kindly be passed in favour of the Petitioner and against the respondents."
2. It is stated that the petitioner is a society consisting of farmers who are inhabitants on the banks of river Yamuna for over the last 100 years and cultivating about 15,000 bighas of land. The writ petition mentions that the members of the petitioner Society have proof of 'lagaan' being paid by their forefathers since 1932 till 2012. It is stated that the farmers were growing Radish, Brinjal, Potato, Onion, etc., on the said land. It is stated that the members of the Petitioner Society could not be deprived of the land without following the procedure as laid down under law.
3. It is stated that the members of the Petitioner Society have been paying money to the Delhi Peasants Co-Operative Multipurpose Society Limited. It is stated that though the DDA claimed that they have cancelled the lease deed of the Delhi Peasants Co-Operative Multipurpose Society Limited in 1967 but it kept on collecting 'lagaan' till 2016 which is a criminal and fraudulent act.
4. It is stated that the Patwari and other policemen are torturing and harassing the farmers and are extorting money and extending threat to them.
5. It is stated that the farmers have received several letters from the DDA claiming that the members of the petitioner Society are unauthorised occupants and that DDA is the owner of the property.
6. It is stated that on 08.11.2020 the officials of DDA gathered at the Bela Estate with JCB machines accompanied by the Police Force with two Battalions of CRPF and BSF for evicting the members of the petitioner/society with an intent to grab the land.
7. Though notice has not been issued in this petition, counters have been filed by the DDA. It is stated that the National Green Tribunal had held that Yamuna Plains are to be protected and no encroachment of any kind is permitted therein. It is stated that DDA has been entrusted with an affirmative duty to protect the river Yamuna, its morphology and its floodplains and it was in a bid to fulfil this mandate and keep the Yamuna floodplains encroachment free, the DDA undertakes regular demolition and removal actions.
8. It is stated that in 2013 writs have been filed restraining the authorities from dispossessing the farmers who were occupying the banks at river Yamuna without following the procedures established under law. The land in question in the said writ petition had been leased out to two different Societies namely Jhil Khuranjia Milk Producers Co-operative Society Ltd. and Delhi Peasants Co-operative Multipurpose Society Ltd. Material on record shows that the members of the petitioner Society were paying certain amount to the Delhi Peasants Co-operative Multipurpose Society Ltd. The said writ petitions were dismissed. LPAs were filed against the order of dismissal. This Court vide judgment dated 31.01.2018 dismissed the batch of LPAs. While dealing with the land which was allotted to the Delhi Peasants Co-operative Multipurpose Society Ltd, it was found that in 1949 the Delhi Peasants Co-operative Multipurpose Society Ltd. was allotted agricultural land measuring 13,344 bighas on leasehold basis for a period of 5 years by the Delhi Improvement Trust (hereinafter referred to as 'DIT'). The said lease was extended from time to time. It was found that DDA, who is the successor of DIT, sought cancellation of the lease deed and asked the Delhi Peasants Co-oper
The main legal point established in the judgment is that unauthorized occupation and encroachment on public premises can be addressed through the appropriate legal channels, and environmental regulat....
The court emphasized that mere possession does not confer ownership rights, and procedural defects in eviction notices can invalidate such actions.
The authenticity of land records and the authority of the DDA over the subject land prevailed in determining the appellant's right to occupy the land.
Possession alone does not confer entitlement to government land; prior rejections of settlement applications by the state are binding.
NGT cannot allow withdrawal of environmental applications raising substantial public interest issues; must ensure full remedial restoration including plantation, beyond mere encroachment removal.
Tribunal limits jurisdiction to environmental protection of green belts and trees, excluding land acquisition disputes, directing demarcation and compliance.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
