At, High Court of Rajasthan
By, THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. ARUN MADAN
For the Appellant: P.S. Asopa, Sr. Advocate, Ashish Joshi, Advocate. For the Respondent: -----------
Dr. AR. Lakshmanan, C.J.
1. The unsuccessful petitioner in the writ petition is the appellant in this appeal, which is directed against the Judgment dated 1-2-2000 passed by the learned single Judge in SB Civil Writ Petition No. 158/96. The prayer in the writ petition is to quash the order dated 24-11-95 with the further direction to the respondents Nos. 1 and 3 not to allot the plo
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
t in question to any other person and that the same should be allotted to the appellant-petitioner Society.
2. In the reply to the stay petition, the Jaipur Development Authority have questioned the locus standi of the appellant in maintaining the writ petition and that the writ petition should be dismissed at the threshold in favour of the respondent department. The matter was heard by a learned single Judge of this Court who on a careful consideration of the submissions made at the time of hearing dismissed the same.
3. We have perused the entire pleadings and the order under appeal and also perused the annexures filed along with the writ petition. It is categorically held by the JDA Tribunal vide its Order dated 24-11-95 (Ann. 4) that the appellant-Society is a trespasser and has no authority to question the allotment. In the writ petition, the learned single Judge has clearly observed on perusal of the record that the land in dispute was allocated and earmarked for construction of a nursery and a boundary wall was also erected by the Jaipur Development Authority. However, before any further work could be commenced, a temple came to be erected on the above strip of land by the appellant-Society, alleged to be a Mandir Vikas Society, who is claiming possession of the above land on the ground that the temple is existing on the disputed land for last many years. We are of the opinion that the reasoning given by the learned single Judge in rejecting the writ petition is unassailable. Both the authorities constituted under the Act have clearly held that the appellant Society is a trespasser and that the temple came to be erected on the above strip of land without any permission and unauthorisedly. This Court shall not encourage such kind of encroachment and construction upon public land.
4. Section 72 of the Jaipur Development Authority Act, 1982 is very clear on this aspect. The Section says; whoever makes any encroachment in any land or space not being private property, whether such land or space belongs to or vests in the Authority or not, except steps over drain in the public street shall on conviction be punished with simple imprisonment which shall not be less than one month but which may extend to three years and with fine which may extend to twenty thousand rupees.
5. The proviso also contemplates that the Court may for any adequate or special reason to be mentioned in the judgment impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than one month.
6. By Sub-sec. (3) of Section 72, it is made clear that the Authority or any officer authorised by in this behalf shall have power to remove any such obstruction or encroachment and the expenses of such removal shall be paid by the person who had caused the said obstruction or encroachment.
7. We are fully satisfied that the appellant-Society is an encroacher and trespasser into the government land and, therefore, no right whatsoever has been accrued to the appellant to claim possession over the land in question.
8. As already stated, it is not for the Society to say as to how the land in dispute should be allocated/allotted or ear-marked. In our opinion, the Jaipur Development Authority shall be free to use the above land as per their requirement for the same purpose.
9. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in the appeal and, therefore, we dismiss the same. The JDA is at liberty to invoke Section 72 of the Act and take steps accordingly for the removal of the encroachment.