Back
2016 Supreme(P&H) 3044
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL, J.
Khori Gaon Residents Welfare Association (regd.) Through Its President – Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana and Others – Respondent
CWP No. 19148 of 2010
Decided on : 29-04-2016
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Karamjit Verma, Advocate and Jasbir Mor, Advocate
For the Respondent: Randhir Singh, Addl. A.G. Haryana
The main legal principle established in the judgment is the interpretation of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which includes the right to livelihood and shelter. The judgment emphasizes the duty of the State to address the needs of the poor and marginalized, particularly in the context of inter-State migration and resettlement.
Headnote:
Right to Livelihood - Encroachment on Forest Land - Punjab Land Preservation Act, 1900, Forest Conservation Act, 1980 - The judgment discusses the right to livelihood and shelter, emphasizing the need for rehabilitation and resettlement of slum dwellers. It refers to various legal provisions and judgments, including the Olga Tellis case, to highlight the inhumane action of demolition without providing alternative accommodation. The court emphasizes the right to live with human dignity and the duty of the State to look into the needs and necessities of poor people. It also addresses the issue of inter-State migration management and suggests the framing of a migration policy by the Central Government.
Fact of the Case:
The case involves a petition filed for the issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to demolish the shanties of the petitioner-association members residing in a forest area. The respondents initiated a demolition drive, claiming the land as 'forest' under the Punjab Land Preservation Act, 1900. The petitioner argued for the right to livelihood and shelter, while the State contended that the eviction process was in compliance with the directions of the Supreme Court to save the forest area.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the members of the petitioner-association were illegal occupants on the Government's land and that the land must be vacated for the implementation of a project as directed by the Supreme Court. However, the court emphasized the need for rehabilitation and resettlement of the poor people living in shanties, highlighting the right to live with human dignity and the duty of the State to look into their needs.
Issues: The main issues revolved around the legality of the demolition drive, the right to livelihood and shelter of the slum dwellers, and the duty of the State in providing alternative accommodation and rehabilitation for the affected individuals.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the right to life guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which includes the right to livelihood. It also considered various legal provisions and judgments, such as the Olga Tellis case, to emphasize the right to live with human dignity and the duty of the State to address the needs of the poor and marginalized.
Final Decision: The petition was disposed of in terms of the order passed in another related case, emphasizing the need for resettlement and rehabilitation of the poor people living in shanties. The court also highlighted the necessity for the Central Government to frame a migration policy in consultation with the concerned States to address inter-State migration management.
PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL, J.
1. This order shall dispose of CWP-19148-2010, COCP-2139- 2011 and COCP-1135-2012, as common questions of fact and law are involved in all these petitions.
2. Before proceeding further, a brief reference to the facts is necessary which are being extracted from CWP-19148-2010.
3. CWP-19148-2010 has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to demolish the shanty (jhuggis) of the members of the petitioner-association who have been residing and settled at Lakkarpur Khori Gaon, Faridabad since many decades.
4. In short, the case as set up by the petitioner-Khori Gaon Resident Welfare Association (for brevity 'petitioner-Association') through its President is to the effect that members of the petitioner-association are the residents of Lakkarpur Khori Gaon, Suraj Kund Road, Faridabad in the State of Haryana. The slum clusters in the said locality came up at a time when there were mining activities being carried out in Aravali Hills area which were stopped in the year 1984-85 in view of directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. However, at some places, it continued till the year 2001. In fact, members of the petitioner-association belong to economically poor rural areas of the country who have seen little or no employment opportunities in their respective States. They came to Faridabad in search of employment subjecting themselves to life in inhumane conditions. They are economic migrants caught up in the iniquitous economic policies of the Governments. It is also averred that the members are mining labourers and their families are residing in the said area for many decades. The administration has never in past objected to their shanties which are approximately 2000 in number. To prove that the members of the petitioner-association have been residing in the said locality, the petitioner annexed ration-cards, identity cards of Haryana Khadan Mazdoor Union and acknowledgment slips of some of its members. It is the case of the petitioner that now the respondents came with bulldozers and demolished some of the shanties as a result of which number of school going children, senior citizens and other persons living there have been affected and rendered homeless. The demolition is being carried out without prior notice and following the principles of natural justice. Hence, this writ petition.
5. Upon notice, the respondents put in appearance through their counsel. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 and 5 and respondent No.4 filed their separate written statements. It has been averred in written statement that the Government has already notified the land in question (popularly known as "Aravali Hills") as 'forest' in the year 1992 under Sections 4 and 5 of the Punjab Land Preservation Act, 1900 (for brevity, 'the Act'). The forest department has the statutory duty to protect, control and manage this area, to carry out forestry activities and to check non-forest activities. The petitioner and its members have no legal right or title over the land in dispute and proper notification and notices were issued many times by the respondents to the unauthorized occupants of the land to get it vacated, but still the land was not vacated. The Municipal Corporation, Faridabad has the ownership rights over the land in question while respondent Nos.1 and 5 have the control and management over that land. Reference to the judgment rendered in I.A. No. 22 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 4677 of 1985, titled as 'M.C. Mehta v. Union of India', decided on 18.03.2004, has been made in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clarified that area covered under Section 4 of the Act would be treated as 'forest' and for use of it, for non-forestry purposes, it would be necessary to comply with the provisions of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980. In compliance of the judgment rendered in M.C.Mehta's case (supra), the Forest Department had issued 60 days show-cau
