This High Court disposed of a Writ Petition filed by an admitted encroacher directed authorities to decide his pending applications within 12 weeks of the order considering merit.
Directed respondent Nos. 2, 3, and 4 to decide pending applications of the petitioner within 12 weeks.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1814.19wp
(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.1814 OF 2019
Popat Laxman Khandagale,
Age: 62 years, Occ: Agri.,
R/o. Belgaon, Tq. Ashti,
District Beed...PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department, Maharashtra State,Mantralaya, Mumbai- 400 032.
2. The Divisional Commissioner, Revenue Department, Aurangabad.
3. The District Collector, Beed, Collector Office, Beed.
4. Sub Divisional Officer, Sub Division Office, Patoda, District Beed.
5. The Tahasildar, Tahasil Office, Ashti, Tq. Ashti, District Beed. ..RESPONDENTS
Mr Vinay B. Anjanwatikar, Advocate for petitioner;
Mr A.R. Kale, A.G.P. for respondent/State
CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE
AND
S.M.GAVHANE, JJ.
DATE : 13th FEBRUARY, 2019
(2)
1814.19wp
ORAL ORDER :
Heard learned Counsel appearing for the
petitioner.
2. The petitioner is one of the encroachers and copy of panchnama placed on record dated 31st August, 2018 at Exhibit-A show that Talathi, Saja Belgaon recorded the fact of encroachment of the encroachers and name of the petitioner finds place at Serial No.6 in the list of encroachers. The petitioner himself has placed on record the copy of the proceeding sheet, wherein Circle Officer refers to proposed initiation of action, namely, issuance of notice to the encroachers and to take steps for removal of the encroachment and then submission of report of action taken.
3.Learned Counsel for the petitioner then by
inviting our attention to the applications/
representations submitted to the Tahasildar, Ashti
on 17th February, 2014, to the Divisional
Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, on 25th October,
1814.19wp (3)
2018 and to the Collector, Beed on 21st September,
2018 as well as to the Sub Divisional Officer, Sub
Division, Patoda, and Tahasildar, Ashti on the same
day. He further submitted before us that the
applications are pending before the authority for
decision. The only anxiety of the petitioner is,
these applications are pending before the competent
authority for considerable long period and no
decision is taken on these applications.
4.This was limited grievance, the petition
was taken up for disposal at admission stage.
5.Learned A.G.P. for the respondents -
authorities submitted that in view of the judgment
of the Hon'ble the Apex Court in the matter of
Jagpal Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and
others, reported in 2011 AIR (SC) 1123, State
Government has to act promptly in the matter of
eviction of illegal occupants and the petitioners
are encroachers, as such, they cannot safely be
stated as illegal occupants. We have gone through
1814.19wp (4)
the above referred judgment of the Hon'ble the Apex
Court. It may not be out of place to refer the
observations of the Hon'ble the Apex Court
reflected in paragraph-22, which reads thus :
"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/GramPanchayat/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.
1814.19wp
(5)
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."
6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has
placed on record Government Resolution dated 12th
July, 2011. This resolution refers to the decision
of the Apex Court. This resolution also refers to
the need of special action plan. In the resolution
itself, it is stated in clause-6(2) that in the
special action programme, notice be issued to the
illegal occupants/encroachers and then by way of
brief hearing, further action of removal of
incompetent encroachments be initiated immediately.
The resolution also refers to certain terms and
conditions.
7. It was the submission of learned A.G.P
that as the petitioner himself admitted that he is
1814.19wp (6)
encroacher, it may not be necessary for the
authorities to consider the applications /
representations.
8.Though this was the submission of learned
A.G.P., in view of the policy of the State
Government framed post decision of the Hon'ble Apex
Court and more particularly, carving out clause,
wherein State Government refers to the need of
special action plan and in that special action plan
itself, the State Government decided to follow the
principles of natural justice, whereby issuance of
notice to the encroachers and brief hearing is
stated.
9.We see no impediment in disposing the writ
petition with directions to respondent Nos. 2,3 and
4 to decide the applications received by them
respectively on 21st September, 2018, as
expeditiously as possible and not later than twelve
(12) weeks from the date of this order. We further
state that while deciding the applications, the
1814.19wp (7)
authority would consider the merit of the
applications, State Government policy reflected in
Government Resolution dated 12th July, 2011 on the
backdrop of the judgment of the Hon'ble the Apex
Court in Jaspal Singh and others (supra).
10.With these directions, the petition is
disposed of.
( S.M.GAVHANE )(PRASANNA B. VARALE)
JUDGE JUDGE
Tupe
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner, who admitted to being an encroacher, is entitled to the disposal of his representations regarding eviction proceedings pending with state authorities.
Whether state authorities pending applications from encroachers considering the Apex Court's directives on natural justice and speedy eviction.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Jagpal Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and othersReferred¶30
Jagpal Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and others, 2011 AIR (SC) 1123 · Who else cites this
Popat Laxman Khandagale
The State of Maharashtra
The Divisional Commissioner, Revenue Department, Aurangabad
The District Collector, Beed
Sub Divisional Officer, Sub Division Office, Patoda
The Tahasildar, Tahasil Office, Ashti
Prasanna B. Varale
S.M. Gavhane
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court