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

Madras HC: Officers Can't Promote Encroachers By Allotting Alternative Lands In Absence Of Statutory Provision

 Learned Additional Advocate General could not refer to any provision of law, which mandates the State Government to allot a land to the encroachers. However, he prayed that till alternative lands are allotted, the encroachments may not be removed.

 {Para 4}

5. The encroachments are on the water-bodies. The allotment ofalternative lands to the encroachers, would only promote the tendency to encroach on the Government land and the water-bodies. For years, the Officers remained silent spectators and failed to take any action in reference to the encroachments on the water-bodies. Therefore, there is a total failure on the part of the Officers concerned to remove the encroachments on the waterbodies and even on catchment-areas. The encroachment of the water-bodies would lead to shrinkage of the water-bodies, destroying them to the maximum and creating acute water scarcity. At times, in the absence of storage facilities to store the water during rainy season, it causes floods.

6. In view of the above, learned Additional Advocate General could not clarify as to why the Officers are promoting the encroachers by allotting alternative lands else-where. It may be a Government policy or decision. However, in the absence of any statutory provision, it would lead to promoting encroachment of the lands on the water-bodies and the same cannot be endorsed.

THE  CHIEF JUSTICE and D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J

(The Order of the Court was made by The Honourable Chief Justice)

Dated: 23.03.2022

Print Page

What is doctrine of settled expectation in respect of regularization of encroachment?

The question whether an applicant would have a vested right to
seek consideration of his request on the basis of the date when he had so
applied   has   been   considered   by   the   Hon'ble   Supreme   Court   in  Howrah
Municipal Corpn. v. Ganges Rope Co. Ltd. (2004) 1 SCC 663.  In said case, an
application for sanction for construction was made by a Company. As the
sanction was neither granted nor refused within the prescribed period, the
Company had approached the High Court in that regard. The High Court had
directed the Municipal Corporation to consider grant of sanction subject to
fulfillment of requirements.  When the application for sanction was pending,
the Building Rules were amended due to which the sanction as sought was

not   granted.     In   that   background   while   considering   the   question   as   to
whether any vested right had been created in favour of the Company despite
subsequent amendment to the Building Rules, it was observed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court that with long usage the word “vest” has also acquired a
meaning as “an absolute or indefeasible right.”  What the Company had was
only a “legitimate” or “settled expectation” to obtain the sanction. The same
did not create any vested right to obtained the sanction.   The following
observations in para 37 of the aforesaid judgment clarify the position.
“37.............................................................................What   we
can understand from the claim of a “vested right” set up by
the respondent Company is that on the basis of the Building
Rules, as applicable to their case on the date of making an
application for sanction and the fixed period allotted by the
Court for its consideration, it had a “legitimate” or “settled
expectation”   to   obtain   the   sanction.     In   our   considered
opinion, such “settled expectation”, if any, did not create any
vested right to obtain sanction.  True it is, that the respondent
Company   which   can   have   no   control   over   the   manner   of
processing   of   application   for   sanction   by   the   Corporation
cannot   be   blamed   for   delay   but   during   pendency   of   its
application for sanction, if the State Government, in exercise
of its rule­making power, amended the Building Rules and
imposed restrictions on the heights of buildings on G.T. Road
and other wards, such “settled expectation” has been rendered
impossible of fulfilment due to change in law. The claim based
on the alleged “vested right” or “settled expectation” cannot
be set up against statutory provisions which were brought into
force   by   the   State   Government   by   amending   the   Building
Rules and not by the Corporation against whom such “vested
right” or “settled expectation” is being sought to be enforced.
The “vested right' or settled expectation has been nullified not
only by the Corporation but also by the State by amending the
Building Rules, Besides this, such a “settled expectation” or
the so­called “vested right” cannot be countenanced against
public interest and convenience which are sought to be served
by amendment of the Building Rules and the resolution of the
Corporation issued thereupon.”

From the aforesaid observations, it is clear that the petitioners
merely had a   “settled expectation” in the matter of regularization of their
encroachment under Government Resolution dated 28­11­1991 and not any
vested right.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH
NAGPUR.
WRIT   PETITION    NO.   6466     OF     2015

Bhagwan Kisan Wagh V  State of Maharashtra,

CORAM: A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.

 DATED : 21­-07­-2016.
Citation: 2016 (5) ALLMR847

Print Page