SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Raj) 1408

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Sangeet Lodha, Manoj Kumar Garg, JJ.
Sawai Ram & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
State of Rajasthan & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Writ Petition No. 13759/2021
Decided On : 04-10-2021

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Govind Lal Suthar, Advocate, for the Petitioner

Encroachments on public land must be removed as a rule, with regularization only in exceptional cases as per government notification.

Headnote:

Encroachment - Land Reserved for School - Act Section List - The court emphasized the obligation of authorities to remove encroachments on land reserved for public purposes, referencing guidelines for a systematic approach to address such issues and the principle that regularization of encroachments is an exception.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners sought removal of encroachments on land reserved for a government school, claiming inaction by the District Collector despite prior representations.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the respondents must address the grievances raised by the petitioners in accordance with established guidelines and legal principles regarding encroachments.

Issues: Whether the respondents are obligated to take action against the encroachment on land reserved for a government school.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that removal of encroachments is mandatory under the law, with regularization being an exception, and emphasized the need for a structured mechanism to handle such complaints.

Result: The writ petition stands dismissed.

JUDGMENT

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking directions to the respondents to remove the encroachment made upon the land comprising Khasra Nos.514/327 and 515/327 of village Mandaliya, Panchayat Samiti- Shiv, District Barmer, which was allotted and reserved for Government school for village Mandaliya, Panchayat Samiti- Shiv, District Barmer.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that despite representation dated 06.07.2021 (Annex.11) being submitted, the District Collector, Barmer has not taken any steps for removal of the encroachment made over the land reserved for school.

The respondents are under an obligation to consider the grievances raised by the petitioners keeping in view the directions issued by this Court in the case of Gulab Kothari (supra) and the directions/guidelines issued by a Coordinate Bench at Jaipur in D.B. Civil Writ (PIL) Petition No.10819/2018 : Jagdish Prasad Meena & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. vide order dated 30.01.2019, which reads as under:

    "In order therefore to provide a pan-Rajasthan solution to this ever persisting problem, we deem it appropriate to direct the Chief Secretary of the State to devise a permanent mechanism, which should be operational in every District of the State where the concerned District Collector should be required to periodically notify for the information of the general public to lodge the complaints/representations with regard to such encroachments with a specially designated Public Land Protection Cell (for short 'PLPC') for rural areas. The PLPC should be head by District Collector and function under his direction and supervision. The PLPC shall get such complaints/representations enquired into by deputing concerned Sub Divisional officer/Tehsildar/Naib Tehsildar so as to verity whether or not such encroachments have actually taken place on such land. If the allegations are found to be substantiated, appropriate steps in accordance with law be immediately taken for removal of the encroachments and appropriate penal action be also taken against the trespassers. The complaints/representations received in the PLPC should be decided by passing speaking order, informing the respective complainant/representationist about the action taken. This would obviate the necessity of such complainants/representationists approaching this Court directly by way of public interest litigation. If this practice is put in place, this Court would not be inclined to directly entertain such public interest litigation or would do so only in the event of inaction on the part of the concerned PLPC.

The PLPC aforementioned shall also keep in view the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in Jagpal Singh & Others v. State of Punjab & Others, (2011) 11 SCC 396 wherein all the State Governments of the country were directed that they should prepare schemes for eviction of illegal/unauthorised occupants of the Gram Sabha/Gram Panchayat/Poramboke/ Shamlat land and the same must be restored to the Gram Sabha/Gram Panchayat for the common use of villagers of the village. The said scheme should provide for the speedy eviction of illegal occupants, after giving them a show cause notice and a brief hearing. It was further held therein that long duration of the illegal encroachment/occupation of land or huge expenditure in making construction thereon or political connections of trespassers are no justification for regularising such illegal occupation. Regularisation should be permitted only in exceptional cases where lease has been granted under some government notification .e.g. to landless labourers or members of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes or where there is already a school, hospital, dispensary, 'shamshan', 'kabristan' or other public utility of the like nature on the land.

Observations of the Supreme Court in Jagpal Singh (supra) thus leave no manner of doubt that removal of encroachment on all such land is a rule and regularisation an exception and that to

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top