Back
2016 Supreme(UK) 796
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
RAJIV SHARMA, ALOK SINGH, JJ.
Mohd. Salim - Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others - Respondents
Writ Petition (PIL) No. 126 of 2014
Decided on : 05-12-2016
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. M.C. Pant, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. B.D. Kandpal, Deputy Advocate General, Mr. Sanjay Bhatt, Standing Counsel
The main legal point established is the need for prompt decision-making by the Central Government to resolve disputes between states and to promote cooperative federalism, while also emphasizing the protection of government land from encroachment and addressing environmental concerns.
Headnote:
Illegal Construction - Government Land Dispute - Section 42, Section 64, Section 79, Section 80, Section 84 of the Uttar Pradesh Reorganisation Act - The court directed the eviction of the respondents from the government land, urged the Central Government to make a final decision on the division of assets, and ordered the constitution of a Ganga Management Board and a ban on mining in the river bed.
Fact of the Case:
The respondents encroached upon government land and raised illegal constructions. The State of Uttar Pradesh and the State of Uttarakhand were in dispute over the division of assets. The Central Government had issued a notification and directed the parties to reach an amicable settlement.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondents had encroached upon government land and that the Central Government should promptly decide on the division of assets. It also directed the constitution of a Ganga Management Board and banned mining in the river bed.
Issues: Illegal encroachment on government land, dispute over division of assets between states, delay in decision-making by the Central Government, and environmental concerns related to mining in the river bed.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for prompt decision-making by the Central Government to resolve disputes between states and to promote cooperative federalism. It also highlighted the importance of protecting government land from encroachment and addressing environmental concerns.
Final Decision: The court directed the eviction of the respondents from the government land, urged the Central Government to make a final decision on the division of assets, and ordered the constitution of a Ganga Management Board and a ban on mining in the river bed.
RAJIV SHARMA, J.
Present petition has been filed pro bono publico with the following reliefs:-
i. Issue writ, rule or direction appropriate in nature by directing the respondents state authorities to remove the illegal construction raised by the private respondents in Government Land in Khasra No. 27, 28 and 30 at right side of the Shakti Nahar situated in Village Kulhal, Tehsil Vikas Nagar, District Dehradun after calling the entire records.
ii. Issue any other writ, rule or direction in the nature of mandamus directing to Central Government to issue appropriate directions regarding disbursement of the land and water resources between the successor states to stop the encroachment over the Government land.
2. According to the averments made in the petition, the respondent nos. 8 & 9 have illegally encroached upon the land, situated at Khasra Nos. 27, 28, 29 & 30, on the right side of Shakti Nahar, Village Kulhal Tehsil Vikas Nagar, District Dehradun. Private respondents have also started raising construction on the encroached land. Petitioner has brought this fact to the notice of the higher authorities. The Executive Engineer issued notice to the private respondents on 30.07.2013 and directed them to remove the encroachment over the land of Khasra No. 27, 28, 29 & 30. The Executive Engineer, on 12.08.2013, requested to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Vikas Nagar for demarcation of the land. The Enquiry Committee was constituted on 16.08.2013, comprising of Revenue Inspector, Regional Lekhpal Kulhal and Lekhpal Jassowala under the chairmanship of Nayab Tehsildar, Vikas Nagar. The Executive Engineer, again on 06.09.2013, requested the Sub Divisional Magistrate for necessary and speedy action against the encroachers. Thereafter, Sub Divisional Magistrate, vide letter dated 09.09.2013, forwarded the enquiry report to the Executive Engineer and directed the Executive Engineer to remove the illegal construction and encroachment of the private respondents.
3. The fact of the matter is that despite various orders, encroachers could not be evicted. The Sub Divisional Magistrate, on 24.12.2013, directed the Tehsildar, Vikas Nagar to contact the S.H.O, Vikas Nagar for obtaining necessary police force for removing illegal construction of the private respondents. Thereafter, the Executive Engineer, on 26.12.2013, issued the final notice to the private respondents and directed them to remove the illegal construction.
4. It is averred in the petition that the private respondents have allegedly purchased government land and they have also raised construction. The private respondents have also filed a suit for injunction. However, there was no stay order passed in their favour. The efforts have also been made in the petition that even after 14 years of creation of the State of Uttarakhand, the dispute in respect of property between the State of U.P. and the State of Uttarakhand is still pending. The private respondents also took a ground to continue their illegal occupation on the Government land by stating that the property belongs to the State of U.P. and the boundaries are yet to be determined. It is also averred in the petition that V.I.P. Ghat in District Haridwar and other canals, similarly in Dehradun Shakti Nahar and in District Udham Singh Nagar, Begual Dam, Nanak Sagar Dam and Banbasa Barrage are still under the control of the State of U.P. There is reference to section 43 of the U.P. Reorganisation Act in the pleadings.
5. The respondents no. 3 & 4 have filed their reply. It is admitted in the reply that the encroached land is owned by the Irrigation Department and the onus of removing of encroachment lies with the Irrigation Department i.e. respondent nos. 5, 6 & 7. Respondent nos. 5, 6 & 7 have also filed a reply. According to their reply, the land in question has been shown under the ownership of the Department i.e. Irrigation Department. A copy of the revenue records (Khatoni) is annexed as CA-1.
6. There is a reference of Ori
