The Supreme Court on Thursday bemoaned the continuing encroachments of government lands, a phenomenon which the top court opined, has continued unabated since independence [Utran se Besthan Railway Jhopadpatti Vikas Mandal v. Government of India].
A Bench of Justices AM Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari and CT Ravikumar said that it is high time local governments wake up to the situation and take measures to prevent such encroachments.
“Primary duty to see that there is no encroachment of public land is duty of local government. It is high time local govt wakes up to this situation. It is a sad story continuing for 75 years. This is the sad story of this country. Some may encroach, they are removed and another encroaches,” the Bench remarked.
It is ultimately the taxpayers’ money which goes down the drain, the Court added.
The Court was hearing a public interest litigation petition with regard to 5,000 jhuggis in the State of Gujarat which ware facing demolition in the wake of the construction of a railway line between Surat and Jalna. The Gujarat High Court had earlier dismissed a plea to stall the same.
The Supreme Court had on August 24, stayed the demolition.
The Court in its order today allowed the demolition to proceed while directing that those affected be provided alternate accommodation. Around 10,000 persons reside in the jhuggis.
The Bench in its order today stated that similar conditions as in the Khori Gaon case from Haryan’s Faridabad would apply and the slum-dwellers will be eligible for accommodation after due process.
The Court also disapproved the Central government’s argument that providing alternate accommodation in such cases is a State subject.
“But you want your property back and you are the Union, you have to take financial responsibility. Why are you spending so much on police force if you cannot manage your own property? Only issuing circulars won’t help,” the Bench told Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj.
In its order, the Court said the fact that these structures are on Railway property is not debated at all, and the aim of the PIL was only to seek rehabilitation.
“Railway enactment allows them to safeguard their property and they also have a railway force to safeguard their property wherever located. We hold Railways equally responsible for this situation and they are bound to provide support to the persons who are likely to be affected by this demolition,” the Court made it clear.
The Bench, therefore, passed the following directions:
– Railways may immediately issue notices to occupants of illegal structures and give two weeks time to vacate the premises;
– In respect of structures which do not require immediate eviction, 4 weeks time may be given in proposed notice for removal of structures;
– In either case if occupants fail to vacate unauthorised structure, it will be open to Western Railways to initiate appropriate legal action and forcible removal of unauthorised structures by taking help of local police force;
It ruled that before beginning the eviction process of eviction, the District Collector must ensure that names and necessary details of those affected are gathered so as to provide suitable accommodation to those eligible for the same.
“The entity who is the owner of the land that is local and State government will be jointly and severally liable to pay solatium amount of ₹2,000 to each hut. Amount shall be initially paid by the Collector for a period of 6 months only to be shared equally by the owner of the land (local and State governments). In the event local government has rehabilitation schemes, the affected persons can apply for the same subject to verification,” the Court added.
Importantly, the Court said that the railways “has power to initiate criminal action against unauthorised occupants and they must resort to such proceedings immediately after it is brought to the notice of concerned official.”
Further, the Court also said that railways being the owner of the property, the local as well as State government must initiate appropriate action against erring persons of concerned establishment for permitting such encroachments and not taking action for removal in right earnest and earliest opportunity.
The matter will be heard again on January 28, 2022.
