Supreme Court Directions for eviction of unauthorized occupants over Gram Panchayat land

We find no merit in this appeal. The Appellants herein were trespassers who illegally encroached on to the Gram Panchayat land by using muscle power/money power and in collusion with the officials and even with the Gram Panchayat. We are of the opinion that such kind of blatant illegalities must not be condoned. Even if the Appellants have built houses on the land in question they must be ordered to remove their constructions, and possession of the land in question must be handed back to the Gram Panchayat. Regularizing such illegalities must not be permitted because it is Gram Sabha land which must be kept for the common use of villagers of the village. The letter dated 26.9.2007 of the Government of Punjab permitting regularization of possession of these unauthorized occupants is not valid. We are of the opinion that such letters are wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. In our opinion such illegalities cannot be regularized. We cannot allow the common interest of the villagers to suffer merely because the unauthorized occupation has subsisted for many years. {Para 13}

22. Before parting with this case we give directions to all the State Governments in the country that they should prepare schemes for eviction of illegal/unauthorized occupants of Gram Sabha/Gram Panchayat/Poramboke/Shamlat land and these must be restored to the Gram Sabha/Gram Panchayat for the common use of villagers of the village. For this purpose the Chief Secretaries of all State Governments/Union Territories in India are directed to do the needful, taking the help of other senior officers of the Governments. The said scheme should provide for the speedy eviction of such illegal occupant, after giving him a show cause notice and a brief hearing. Long duration of such illegal occupation or huge expenditure in making constructions thereon or political connections must not be treated as a justification for condoning this illegal act or for regularizing the illegal possession. Regularization should only be permitted in exceptional cases e.g. where lease has been granted under some Government notification to landless labourers or members of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes, or where there is already a school, dispensary or other public utility on the land.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 1132/2011 

Decided On: 28.01.2011

 Jagpal Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Punjab and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Markandey Katju and Gyan Sudha Misra, JJ.

Author: Markandey Katju, J.

Citation: MANU/SC/0078/2011

Print Page

Whether the government can allot Gairan land to a private person?

 After having heard the learned advocate, it is quite apparent that the petitioner is seeking allotment of a portion of Gairan land. The Supreme Court in the case of Jagpal Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors. reported in (2011) 11 SCC 396, has specifically prohibited such allotment of a Gairan land to individuals. Pursuant thereto, the State Government has also issued a circular dated 12.07.2011, implementing the directions of the Supreme Court and regulating the allotment of portion of gairan land for public use. {Para 4}

5. In view of such specific directions of the Supreme Court and the subsequent decision by the State Government prohibiting private use of a Gairan land, ex-facie there is no apparent illegality in the impugned communication whereby the learned Collector has rejected the proposal of the petitioner.

 Bombay High Court

Ramesh Asaram Shelke vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 7 December, 2020

Bench: Mangesh S. Patil

Print Page

Whether Gram panchayat can give no objection for regularization of encroachment done over Gairan land by passing resolution?

  The petitioner is admittedly an encroacher

upon government “E” Class land, which is Gairan land.

It is the contention of Mr. Awachar, learned counsel for

the petitioner that the petitioner is a land less person,

who has encroached upon this land since the year 1991

and therefore, the petitioner is entitled for allotment of

the land encroached by him through its regularization.

He also submits that there is a Gram Panchayat

Resolution dated 30.06.1998, which gives no objection

for permanent allotment of government land to the

petitioner. {Para 2}

3. Mr. Patil, learned AGP for respondent Nos.1,

3 and 4 submits that under Section 22A of the

Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (for short "the

Code of 1966"), no regularization for any private

purpose is permissible, as it could amount to diversion

of the Gairan land against the express provisions of law.

He also submits that even by the criteria laid down in

the case of Jagpal Singh (supra), the petitioner is not

entitled for any kind of regularization.

4. So far as Gram Panchayat resolution is

concerned, we must say that there was no business for

the Gram Panchayat to have passed a resolution, giving

its no objection for regularization of the encroachment

upon the government land, especially in view of the

provisions made under sub-Section (6) of Section 22A

of the Code of 1966. These provisions indicate that

powers of diversion, grant, lease of Gairan land under

Section 22A of the Code of 1966 shall be vested in the

State Government. Therefore, passing of any unwarrented

resolution in respect of the land, of which

Gram Panchayat is not the owner or the land which is

not vested in the Gram Panchayat, only amounts to

meddling with the affairs of the State Government, for

which purpose, appropriate action, if thought it

necessary, would have to be taken by the State

Government.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2581 OF 2021

Ramdas s/o. Sambhaji Ghewande Vs. State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary,

Print Page

Whether petitioner can seek regularization of his encroachment over Gairan Land?

  It would be clear from the above provisions

of law that except for public purpose, the Gairan land

cannot be diverted or granted or leased out for any

other use. In the present case, the petitioner is seeking

allotment of the land on lease to him for private

purpose, which is not permissible under above referred

provisions of law. {Para 6}

7. In present case, admittedly, the

petitioner is not there on the land by virtue of some

Government Notification in his favour. Admittedly, the

petitioner is seeking regularization of his encroachment

for only private purpose. Therefore, as per the law laid

down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, the

petitioner is not entitled for regularization of his

encroachment by allotting the land on lease to him.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2581 OF 2021

Ramdas s/o. Sambhaji Ghewande Vs. State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary,

CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND

ANIL S. KILOR, JJ .

DATE : 26th JULY, 2021.

Print Page

Whether State or third party can permit change of user of Gouchar land contrary to its permissible use?

 It is trite to say that gouchar land can be

used only for purposes for which it is permitted

to be used. If there is a user contrary to the

permissible user, whether by the State or by any

third party, the same cannot go on.

Rehabilitation of persons is really not required

in the present case as only three persons are

entitled to an alternative site as per rules.

There is of course some dispute whether the

encroachers have made permanent structures or

kuchha construction for keeping cattle but be

that as it may, the user cannot be contrary to

what is being permitted for gouchar land, which is

a grazing land.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5135 OF 2021

RAMESHBHAI VIRABHAI CHAUDHARI Vs THE STATE OF GUJARAT 

Citation: SEPTEMBER 06, 2021.

Print Page