Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(RAJ) 31389
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JAIPUR BENCH)
Mr. Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, CJ, Mr. Uma Shanker Vyas, J
VIJAY KUMAR BOYAT S/O RAJU BOYAT – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN – Respondent
CW / 17971 / 2022
Mr. Kuldeep Sharma, Mr. S.N. Bohra, Mr. R.N. Mathur, Sr. Adv., assisted by Mr. Ashwine Jaiman, Mr. Ajay Choudhary, Mr. Nitesh rawat, Mr. Amit Kuri with Mr. Dharma Ram, Mr. Harshvardhan Shekhawat, Ms. Nandini Mirdha
The court emphasized the necessity of individual hearings before the JDA can act on encroachment allegations, affirming that previous orders did not permit removal without proper adjudication.
Headnote:(A) Public Interest Litigation - Jurisdiction of Court - The Court clarified that the order dated 27.01.2023 did not command the removal of occupants without due process and emphasized the necessity of individual hearings before any action is taken by the Jaipur Development Authority (JDA) regarding alleged encroachments. (Paras 1, 11, 15)
(B) Modification of Orders - The Court acknowledged that the revival of the PIL was based on grievances regarding non-compliance with previous orders, stressing that the JDA must conclude proceedings lawfully without presuming encroachments. (Paras 11, 16)
Facts of the case:
The case involves allegations of encroachment on public roads by occupants, with previous orders addressing the need for hearings before any removal actions by the JDA. The Court noted that prior orders had not established findings on encroachments. (Paras 1-10)
Findings of Court:
The Court found that the JDA is to conclude proceedings based on individual cases, and the interim order regarding road width was vacated. The PIL was closed, allowing the JDA to act as per law. (Paras 16-18)
Issues: The main issues addressed include the validity of the JDA's actions regarding encroachments, the necessity of individual hearings for occupants, and the implications of previous court orders. (Paras 1, 4, 15)
Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that the JDA must follow due process in addressing encroachments and that the occupants have the right to contest their status before any removal actions are taken. (Paras 15, 17)
Result: Interim order dated 21.11.2024 vacated; PIL closed.
Order
29/11/2024
1. Pressing application (IA No.3/2024) for vacating stay order, submission of learned Senior Counsel for applicants-respondents is that without any notice and opportunity of hearing to occupants, PIL’s are being filed to seek an order without adjudication on any of the issues which directly affect and impact the rights of individuals. It is submitted that the instant PIL was filed before this Court in which initially, writ petition was disposed of on 05.12.2022. However, as the observations which were made, were affecting the rights of occupants who were not heard, application for modification was filed, whereafter order dated 05.12.2022 was modified and an order was again passed on 27.01.2023 by this Court clarifying that the Court has not issued any command to Jaipur Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as ‘JDA’) or its authorities to remove the applicants by recording any finding of encroachment and it is for the authorities to draw appropriate proceedings and act in accordance with law.
2. The Court further clarified that order dated 05.12.2022 was passed without there being any decision on the merits of the case much less any finding on encroachment and only direction was to conclude the proceedings. It is the submission that order dated 27.01.2023 was not brought to the notice of the Court seeking revival on the PIL with the result that the PIL was revived on 11.08.2023.
3. It is further submitted that without hearing the occupants, order has been passed on 21.11.2024 making it a case of admitted position with regard to the width of the road.
4. It is submitted that the averments made in the PIL and admission made by JDA, would not bind the occupants and they are entitled to appropriate opportunity to dispute the factual position as is being asserted by the petitioners and the JDA. It is also submitted that taking shelter of order dated 21.11.2024, now the JDA is proceeding to issue notice taking the admitted position as stated in the order dated 21.11.2024 and the result is foregone, therefore, the interim order be vacated and the newly added respondents be heard and then appropriate orders, as may be considered necessary, may be passed.
5. Learned counsel for the JDA would submit that JDA has only acted under the directions of this Court. It is submitted that JDA has not removed anyone without following the due procedure of law. He submits that the notices are issued to every person who upon survey has been found to be encroacher. Learned counsel for the JDA asserts that the width of the road is 48 metres and the persons to whom notices are being issued including the present applicants-respondents are those who have been found to be encroachers and after receipt of the reply, the matter would be decided and then only orders would be passed in the matter.
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the PIL petitioners would submit that while seeking revival of the PIL, order dated 27.01.2023 was not within petitioners’ notice and knowledge. He would further submit that in any case the allegation of encroachment is required to be duly enquired into and in substance, the direction issued by this Court on 21.11.2024, only orders enquiry, therefore, the application for vacating the stay is liable to be rejected.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
8. This PIL has been filed by the petitioners making allegations with regard to encroachment on public road.
9. Vide order dated 05.12.2022, this PIL was disposed of. This Court noticed that the JDA Tribunal had passed an order on 31.05.2017 and in fact JDA had issued notice to all those persons who have been alleged to be encroachers. The grievance raised in the PIL was that even though five years elapsed, but the proceedings have not been brought to their logical conclusion. This Court noticed that even after the order passed by the JDA Tribunal giving opportunity of hearing to the encroachers, issuing directions to JDA to take necessary proceedings,
