Encroachers on public land are not entitled to equitable remedies under writ jurisdiction, and rights cannot be claimed through illegal occupation contrary to the Indian Forest Act and established Supreme Court precedents.

JUDGMENT

Sanjeev Narula, J. (Oral)--The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 seeking quashing/setting aside of (i) Notification bearing no. F.10(42)-1/PA/DCF/93/2012-17(I) dated 24th May, 1994 [hereinafter "Notification"] issued by Respondent No. 2 - Development Department of GNCTD declaring lands mentioned under Schedule `A' annexed therein [hereinafter, "petition land"] as "reserved forest"; and (ii) Notice bearing no. F.NO. 06/DCF(S)/ENCR.PUL PEHLADPUR/2021/5734-38 dated 08th June, 2022 [hereinafter "Notice"] issued by Respondent No. 3 - office of Deputy Conservator of Forests (South), Department of Forest and Wildlife, GNCTD.

2. Mr. Rajesh Pathak, counsel for Petitioners, submits that the petition land was initially under the control of the Revenue Department, however, was later declared as "reserved forest" in terms of Section 4 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 by the Respondent No. 3 by way of the above Notification. Thereafter, deriving authority from the same, Respondent No. 3 issued the impugned Notice wherein Petitioners were directed to vacate the petition land within 7 days, failing which, the structures erected thereon would be demolished and all materials found shall be seized as tools of encroachment. However, despite the issuance of the impugned Notice, it is submitted that the petition land always remained residential in nature and Petitioners and other alleged encroachers, continued to reside in the petition land for more than a decade.

3. Mr. Pathak further contends that despite the petition land being declared as reserved forest in 1994, Respondents never acted upon the same and Petitioners were not made aware of such Notification. Petitioners are the legal owners of the houses erected on the petition land and are duly facilitated with electricity, water supply etc. by government agencies. Furthermore, the factum of residence of the Petitioners in the petition land has also been endorsed by the Government as is evident from the issue of Aadhar cards against the same addresses. Petitioners predominantly belong to an economically weaker stratum of society and unbeknownst of the impugned Notification, purchased houses situated in the petition land, and have been residing therein for a considerable period of time. Petitioners do not have means to secure alternative accommodations for themselves and their families and will be gravely prejudiced by the proposed demolition.

4. On the other hand, Mr. Satyakam, Additional Standing Counsel for Respondents No. 1 to 3, argues that Petitioners are rank trespassers on public/reserve forest land and are not entitled to any equitable remedy under the writ jurisdiction of this Court. By way of this petition, Petitioners are seeking to bypass the orders of the Supreme Court in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (1996) 2 SCALE 55 restraining any cultivation or construction in the Ridge Area - which encompasses the petition land as well. Petitioners are claiming rights to illegally occupy the petition land which vests with Respondent No. 3, merely because they have built a structure on the petition land. Petitioners' claims are wholly misplaced and misdirected, and as such, are liable to be rejected. Mr. Satyakam also places reliance on Section 5 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 to state that no right could have accrued in favour of the Petitioners herein qua the petition land after the issuance of the Notification. It is for Petitioners to establish their rights or title over the petition land, which has not been successfully done.

5. We have given our thoughtf