JUDGMENT

Hon'ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral)

A Public Interest Litigation being WPPIL NO. 47 of 2013 for removal of encroachment and unauthorized construction, including encroachment on public land and road came up for hearing before a Division Bench of this Court. The Division Bench of this Court ordered for removal of encroachment with a number of directions contained in its order dated 18.06.2018. This Court has been informed that consequent to this order, a joint encroachment removal drive was initiated by the District Administration, the Development Authority and the Municipal Corporation in Dehradun, which is presently the provisional capital of the State. Admittedly, the drive is not just for removal of unauthorized constructions but also for encroachments on public land, including public road.

2. This Court has been informed that one such person who was affected by the anti-encroachment drive, approached the Hon'ble Apex Court by way of filing an S.L.P. The said SLP was disposed of by the Hon'ble Apex Court vide its order dated 04.07.2018 modifying the directions of the Division Bench to some extent. The Hon'ble Apex Court has directed that removal of encroachment can only be done by following principle of natural justice and fair play, and therefore a show cause notice ought to be given within a period of three weeks (from the date of passing of the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court) and reply to the same was to be filed within a period of three weeks thereafter and the decision was to be taken within a period of four weeks from the date of filing of the reply. However, the Hon'ble Apex Court clarified that this modification will not include any encroachment which is on “public road". Meaning thereby, that the removal of encroachment on a public road can go on as per the direction of the Division Bench of this Court.

3. The petitioners being aggrieved by the removal of the encroachment have filed the writ petition before this Court with the following prayers:

“i) A writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the Respondents, their employees and instrumentalities to not to proceed to demolish the constructions/structures and boundary wall standing on the property of the petitioners on Kaulagarh Road, Dehradun and also to not to trespass into the private properties of the petitioners as described in Annexures 1 to 6 attached herewith, for widening of the existing Kaulagarh Road beyond 50 feet, without acquiring the private properties in accordance with the provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

ii) A writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the orders issued to the petitioners attached and marked as Annexure 11."

4. Learned counsel for the State, Mr. K.N. Joshi and learned counsel for the Development Authority*, Mr. Rahul Consul have apprised this Court that the encroachment made by the petitioners is on a public road, namely, Kaulagarh Road.

5. Rebutting this allegation, the learned counsel for the petitioners would argue that there is no encroachment on a public road at the hands of the petitioners. The petitioners have annexed certain maps, including sanction map for their constructions, etc.

6. At this stage, it must be said that Dehradun, where the encroachment drive is presently on was declared long back a “Development Area", where there is a Development Authority, created under the provisions of U.P. Urban Building and Planning Act, 1973, and without permission of this Authority no construction can be made in Dehradun. Moreover, as far as removal of encroachment on public land is concerned, the same has to be done under the provisions given in Section 26-A of the U.P. Urban Building and Planning Act. Thereafter Section 26-B, 26-C and 26-D further provide as to what has to be done after removal of such encroachments. It speaks, inter alia, about compensation to be given in some cases and the procedure