Mukna Ram v. State Of Rajasthan and others

 Mukna Ram

v.

State Of Rajasthan And Others

(High Court Of Rajasthan, Jodhpur Bench)

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13602/2021 | 01-10-2021

1. This writ petition is preferred by the petitioner seeking directions to the respondents to remove the illegal and unauthorized encroachment made by encroachers on the land comprising Khasra No.219, 143, 172, 586/172, 702/226, 226, 227, 442, 445, 403, 804/702 and 183 of village Aabsar,Teshil Sujangarh, District Churu, which is alleged to have been recorded in the revenue record as ‘Gair Mumkin Pasture’, ‘Johad Paytan Land’ and ‘Gair Mumkin Public Way’.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that despite representations being made by the petitioner the District Collector, Churu, the respondents have not taken any steps for removal of the encroachment made over the land in question.

3. The respondents are under an obligation to remove the encroachment made on the public utility land, Gochar and Oran land etc. keeping in view the directions issued by this Court in the case of Gulab Kothari (supra) and the directions/guidelines issued by a Coordinate Bench at Jaipur in D.B. Civil Writ (PIL) Petition No.10819/2018 : Jagdish Prasad Meena & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. vide order dated 30.01.2019 reads as under:

“In order therefore to provide a pan-Rajasthan solution to this ever persisting problem, we deem it appropriate to direct the Chief Secretary of the State to devise a permanent mechanism, which should be operational in every District of the State where the concerned District Collector should be required to periodically notify for the information of the general public to lodge the complaints/representations with regard to such encroachments with a specially designated Public Land Protection Cell (for short ‘PLPC’) for rural areas. The PLPC should be head by District Collector and function under his direction and supervision. The PLPC shall get such complaints/representations enquired into by deputing concerned Sub Divisional officer/Tehsildar/Naib Tehsildar so as to verity whether or not such encroachments have actually taken place on such land. If the allegations are found to be substantiated, appropriate steps in accordance with law be immediately taken for removal of the encroachments and appropriate penal action be also taken against the trespassers. The complaints/representations received in the PLPC should be decided by passing speaking order, informing the respective complainant/representationist about the action taken. This would obviate the necessity of such complainants/representationists approaching this Court directly by way of public interest litigation. If this practice is put in place, this Court would not be inclined to directly entertain such public interest litigation or would do so only in the event of inaction on the part of the concerned PLPC.

The PLPC aforementioned shall also keep in view the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in Jagpal Singh & Others vs. State of Punjab & Others, (2011) 11 SCC 396 wherein all the State Governments of the country were directed that they should prepare schemes for eviction of illegal/unauthorised occupants of the Gram Sabha/Gram Panchayat/Poramboke/ Shamlat land and the same must be restored to the Gram Sabha/Gram Panchayat for the common use of villagers of the village. The said scheme should provide for the speedy eviction of illegal occupants, after giving them a show cause notice and a brief hearing. It was further held therein that long duration of the illegal encroachment/occupation of land or huge expenditure in making construction thereon or political connections of trespassers are no justification for regularising such illegal occupation. Regularisation should be permitted only in exceptional cases where lease has been granted under some government notification .e.g. to landless labourers or members of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes or where there is already a school, hospital, dispensary, ‘shamshan’, ‘kabristan’ or other public utility of the like nature on the land.

Observations of the Supreme Court in Jagpal Singh (supra) thus leave no manner of doubt that removal of encroachment on all such land is a rule and regularisation an exception and that too in extremely limited number of cases, which only the Government can do by appropriate notification of the government and no other authority.”

4. The respondents are expected to look into the representations made by the petitioner and do the needful in accordance with law.

5. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. 

https://www.legitquest.com/case/mukna-ram-v-state-of-rajasthan-and-others/1FFAAC