High Court Punjab-Haryana High Court

Court On Its Own Motion vs Unknown on 4 October, 2008

Punjab-Haryana High Court
Court On Its Own Motion vs Unknown on 4 October, 2008
C.W.P. No.4886 of 2003                                    -: 1 :-


      IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
                  HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH


                              C.W.P. No.4886 of 2003
                              Date of decision: October 04, 2008.


Court on its own motion
                                                          ...Appellant(s)

            v.
State of Punjab & Anr.

                                                          ...Respondent(s)


CORAM:      HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT


1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?


Present:    Shri S.S. Behl, Advocate for the applicant.

            Shri M.L. Saggar, Sr. Advocate with
            Shri G.S. Brar, Advocate

            Shri Amol Rattan Singh, Additional Advocate General, Punjab.

            Shri Ashok Aggarwal, Sr. Advocate, with
            Shri Mukul Aggarwal, Advocate, for MC Ludhiana.

            Shri Vinish Singla, Advocate, for MC, Patiala

            Shri T.S. Dhindsa, Advocate for MC Amritsar.


                                ORDER

Surya Kant, J. –

Aggrieved at his removal as a Councillor of the Municipal

Corporation, Ludhiana, one Satpal Puri filed CWP No.15572 of 2001 which
C.W.P. No.4886 of 2003 -: 2 :-

was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on 29.5.2002. The said

Satpal Puri filed SLP (Civil) No.22649 of 2002 in the Supreme Court.

While dismissing the SLP, their Lordships directed that “the Bench which

passed the impugned order shall, after examining the record of the case,

register a suo moto public interest case, issue notice initially to the

Municipal Corporation and the State Govt. to appear, also directing them

to carry out a survey so as to find out how much public property has been

encroached upon and how many constructions have come up which

would have the effect of defeating the Town Improvement Scheme.”

[2]. This is how these suo moto proceedings came to be initiated by

this Court in public interest, calling upon the State of Punjab and the

Municipal Corporation of Ludhiana to undertake “a comprehensive survey

of the entire municipal area of Ludhiana to identify unauthorized

encroachments/ construction on govt. lands and municipal lands as also

constructions made in violation of the sanctioned plan or without obtaining

the sanctioned plan”.

[3]. On 6.12.2003, it was informed on behalf of the Municipal

Corporation that in a large number of cases encroachments could not be

removed due to the restraint orders passed in about 200 cases pending in

different civil courts at Ludhiana. Taking notice thereof and in order to

ensure that the process of the court is not abused or misused by those who

have made encroachments on public and municipal lands, this Court

directed the Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana to apply for vacation of

injunction orders in all the pending cases. A further direction was issued to

the District & Sessions Judge, Ludhiana to ensure that applications for
C.W.P. No.4886 of 2003 -: 3 :-

vacation of injunction orders are heard and decided by the concerned courts

within a period of six weeks.

[4]. Vide a subsequent order dated 10.2.2004, the State Govt. was

restrained from regularizing unauthorized encroachments and constructions

made in the municipal area of Ludhiana. Thereafter, on 19.2.2004, the said

restraint order was expanded qua all the municipal areas in the State of

Punjab with a further direction to the Commissioners/Chief

Executives/Executive Officers and Secretaries of all Municipal

Corporations, Municipal Councils, Municipal Committees and Nagar

Panchayats to ensure that no body is allowed to make encroachments on all

public lands including those falling in the municipal areas.

[5]. Meanwhile, the Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana filed a status

report dated 19.5.2005 informing that there were 108 cases of

encroachments on land measuring 400 square yards and above and in all,

land measuring 2,42,363.14 square yards was under unauthorized

possession. It was further reported that 22 encroachments involving land

measuring 1,16,817.74 square yards had been made by the Government

institutions, such as civil hospitals/dispensaries/police stations, etc.

[6]. On 20.5.2005, the scope of these proceedings was further

enlarged as status report in relation to encroachments on public lands in

other Districts of Punjab was also sought. On 25.8.2005, Municipal

Corporation, Ludhiana informed this Court that 68 big encroachments had

since been removed and land measuring more than 1 lac square yards stood

retrieved. It was further informed that lawful action had already been taken

against the remaining encroachers. As regards the areas falling within the
C.W.P. No.4886 of 2003 -: 4 :-

municipalities of Jalandhar, Amritsar, Bhatinda and Patiala, the State

Government sought and was granted time to file their status reports. On

23.5.2006, status reports were filed by the Municipal Corporations,

Ludhiana, Amritsar and Jalandhar, followed by the status reports of

Ludhiana and Patiala on 12.9.2006. Needless to say that the object of

obtaining periodical status reports was to keep the authorities hammered to

ensure that all the encroachments were removed from the

government/public lands in possession of unauthorized occupants.

Somewhat similar directions were reiterated by this Court vide order dated

18.12.2006.

[7]. Laying emphasis on the fact that planned development with

sufficient green space, parking etc. go a long way in making way for a

decent living which further gives substance and meaning to right to life and

liberty in terms of the mandate contained in Article 21 of the Constitution,

this Court vide order dated 30.10.2007 directed the Municipal Corporation,

Bhatinda to file a detailed affidavit with regard to the encroachment cases

pending in the local courts. Similarly, the fact that Municipal Corporation,

Patiala had removed encroachments from an area measuring 33,510 sq.

yards out of the total encroached area of 41,520 sq. yards was taken

cognizance of and a learned Senior Counsel of this Court was requested to

visit Patiala and carry out an inspection of the city to find out the extent of

encroachments on the government or municipal lands, if any. The Court

Commissioner was requested to meet the NGOs or other organizations to

find out the extent of encroachments by the individuals.

[8]. However, on a consideration of the various status reports filed
C.W.P. No.4886 of 2003 -: 5 :-

by the Municipal Corporations of Ludhiana, Patiala, Amritsar and Bhatinda

from time to time, this Court noticed some inherent contradictions in the

explanations rendered by the Municipal Corporations on removal of

encroachments and/or treating even those persons as encroachers who had

bona fide sale-deeds in their favour and raised construction after getting the

building plan sanctioned from the competent authority. Similarly, non-

finalization of a comprehensive scheme for the development of Amritsar

was also viewed seriously. As regards Patiala, this Court took exception to

the fact that as per the report of the Court Commissioner, certain

Councillors had themselves encroached upon the roads and have filed cases

in civil courts. As regards Bhatinda, it was noticed that in various cases of

encroachments of public streets, parks and roads, the subordinate courts had

granted injunction orders. The directions were, therefore, issued to

Municipal Corporation, Patiala to file a proper affidavit, to Municipal

Corporation, Amritsar to submit the comprehensive scheme for

development, and to Municipal Corporation, Patiala to submit the details of

the court cases and their status with a direction to the subordinate courts at

Bhatinda to dispose of the cases of encroachments pending before such

courts. On 27.2.2008, the Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana was reminded

of the fact that either there should be a policy under which the government

institutions/schools, etc. could be raised on a public land by encroachment

or the municipal authorities should act within the parameters of law.

[9]. We have heard at some length Counsel for the Municipal

Corporations, learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab as well as

counsel for the interveners and perused the latest status reports filed by the
C.W.P. No.4886 of 2003 -: 6 :-

four Municipal Corporations.

[10]. Though it appears that under the directions issued by this Court

from time to time, as noticed above, the municipal authorities have taken

some compulsive steps to retrieve the government or municipal lands from

the encroachers and except in the case of educational/religious/public

institutions and/or of those individuals where the civil courts have either

passed a decree or granted injunction, rest of the encroachments have been

substantially removed. It, however, does not absolve the municipal

authorities from keeping a vigil and introducing and effective enforcement

and monitoring mechanism to prevent future recurrences and tackle to this

perennial problem. It is a sad state of affair that what the municipal

authorities ought to have done on their own, had to be reminded by this

Court through these suo moto proceedings. It would, thus, be too

presumptuous and far from ground realities to accept that no further action

is required to be taken in the matter or that the municipal areas concerned

are now free from any encroachments.

[11]. While, we are not inclined to continue monitoring the

enforcement activities of the Corporations indefinitely, their persistent

inaction in the past, warrants suitable directions to the authorities of the

Municipal Corporations and the State Government, to ensure that the

ongoing process of removal of encroachments is taken to its logical

conclusion and no one is allowed to grab the public properties in future also

with or without the connivance of the authorities concerned. We

accordingly dispose of this writ petition with the following directions:-

(i) the State of Punjab is directed to take a conscious
C.W.P. No.4886 of 2003 -: 7 :-

policy decision, in accordance with law for removal

and/or regularization of the encroachments, if any, made

on the public lands by the government’s Educational

Institutes, Hospitals, Dispensaries, Police Stations, etc.

keeping in view the fact that such institutions are not to

be placed at the same pedestal as a private individual

encroacher;

(ii) the directions issued by this Court on 10.2.2004

restraining the State Government from regularizing

unauthorized encroachments and constructions,

provided that such encroachments are other than by the

government or public institutions, are made absolute;

(iii) the civil courts before whom the cases pertaining to

encroachments made within the areas of Municipal

Corporations, Ludhiana, Bhatinda and Patiala are

pending, are directed to expedite the disposal of those

cases preferably within two years of their institution;

(iv) the Municipal Corporations are directed that

encroachments from all those public properties except

falling within the direction No.(i) above and/or

wherever the civil court has decided the matter in favour

of the private individuals, shall be removed and the

lands will be retrieved forthwith but not later than six

months from today;

(v) the Municipal Corporations are further directed to
C.W.P. No.4886 of 2003 -: 8 :-

constitute and notify the Enforcement and Monitoring

Committees for one or more areas which shall

periodically report to the Municipal Commissioner

regarding the status of the encroachments, if any, their

taking place or being removed within the area.

Necessary and prompt action shall be taken by the

Municipal authorities to nip it in the bud;

(vi) the Municipal Corporations shall forthwith locate the

encroachment prone areas and take all necessary

safeguards/preventive measures against possible

trespass/encroachments, viz., erecting barbed-wire

fencing, displaying notice-boards containing statutory

warning, etc., and make the Encroachment and

Monitoring Committee of the respective area

accountable for any lapse or inaction on its part;

(vii) the Municipal Corporations shall also evolve public

participation in their anti-encroachment drive by

constituting Vigilance Committees of the NGOs/citizens

who may volunteer to inform the municipal authorities

including the Enforcement and Monitoring Committees

regarding any fresh encroachments so that the desired

action in terms of direction No.(v) above can be taken

without any delay;

(viii) if a public spirited person notices that any

encroachment is not being removed and/or being
C.W.P. No.4886 of 2003 -: 9 :-

allowed to take place in connivance with the employees,

authorities or councillors of the Municipal Corporation,

he/she shall be at liberty to institute contempt of court

proceedings against such person and/or Municipal

authorities for their act of willful and deliberate

disobedience of the directions issued hereinabove.

[12].      No costs.


                                                 [ Surya Kant ]
                                                      Judge


October 4, 2008.                                  [T.S. Thakur]
kadyan                                            Chief Justice