The High Court dismissed three connected writ petitions challenging a notice for eviction. The court held the notice was sustainable based on a final demarcation report confirming the land belonged to the Central Government. Reliance was placed on Supreme Court precedents regarding encroachment.
Petitioners' writ petitions were dismissed.
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.
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Writ Petition (C) No.2931 of 2017
---- Petitioners
Versus
2
---- Respondents
AND
Writ Petition (C) No.2941 of 2017
3
Chhattisgarh.
---- Petitioners
Versus
---- Respondents
AND
Writ Petition (C) No.2948 of 2017
4
---- Petitioners
Versus
---- Respondents
For Petitioners :Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate For State/Resp. :Mr. Shashank Thakur, Govt. Advocate & Mr. H.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board
10/11/2017
(1) These petitions are directed against the impugned notice dated 28.10.2017 passed by respondent No.2 directing the petitioners to remove encroachment and vacation of the suit premises belonging to the railways alleging that they have encroached on their land.
(2) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the impugned notice is unsustainable and bad in law.
5
(3) Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents would support the impugned order and oppose the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners.
(4) I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
(5) The present petitioners had earlier filed writ petitions being WPC No.110 of 2016 & others connected matters before this Court. The said writ petitions were disposed of by this Court on 18.01.2016 directing Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Dhamtari to demarcate the area to ascertain as to what exact area is owned by the Railways or the State Government. Pursuant to order of this Court, demarcation has been done by competent Revenue Officer. On the basis of which, impugned notice for eviction has been issued. This Court by order dated 18.01.2016 passed in WPC No.110/2016 and other connected matters has clearly directed the respondents Union of India and others to proceed further for removal of encroachment on the basis of finding on the demarcation, which states as under in para 7:-
“7. Considering the above settled legal principles and in view of the fact that the petitioners have not placed before this Court any document proving their title or entitlement to remain in occupation of the land, all the writ petitions are disposed of with a direction that the Sub Divisional Officer (R), Dhamtari shall demarcate the area to ascertain as to what exact area is owned by the railways or the State Government. Demarcation shall be carried within a period of one month from today. On the basis of finding on the demarcation, which should be carried on in presence of the petitioners, the railways or the State Government, as the case may be, shall proceed with the removal of encroachment, in accordance with law”.
6
(6) The demarcation report as done by the competent revenue authorities has not been questioned either in the writ petition or any other appropriate proceeding and demarcation report has become final.
(7) Thereafter, in accordance with the demarcation report, the respondents have proceeded further and issued notice to the petitioners for removal of encroachment and vacation of the suit premises belonging to the railways. The petitioners have failed to establish any legal right over the subject land, which has held to be land belonging to Central Government.
(8) In view of the aforesaid finding and in the light of decision of Supreme Court in the matter of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation Vs. Nawab Khan Gulab Khan and Others1 and further in the matter of Jagpal Singh & Others Vs. State of Punjab & Others2 . I do not find any merit in these writ petitions. Consequently, the writ petitions deserve to be and are accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
(Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge
L/-
1 (1997) 11 SCC 121
2 AIR 2011 SC 1123
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petitions challenging the notice to remove encroachment on land alleged to belong to Railways are sustainable in law?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation Vs. Nawab Khan Gulab Khan and OthersReferred¶83
(1997) 11 SCC 121 · Who else cites this
Jagpal Singh & Others Vs. State of Punjab & OthersReferred¶83
AIR 2011 SC 1123 · Who else cites this
4 provisions across 4 enactments
Dilip Singh and others
Union Of India
Sanjay K. Agrawal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
