“Unauthorized Occupation and Possession of Land cannot be legalized,” says Supreme Court
In the State of Haryana and Ors. vs Satpal & Ors. case, the Supreme Court bench including Justice M.R. Shah and Justice B.V. Nagarathna quashed the judgment and order passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The order highlighted the legalization of the unauthorized occupation and possession made by the original writ petitioners on the land. During the hearing, the Supreme Court stated that “The unauthorized occupation and possession of the land, which is reserved for the school and the playground, cannot be directed to be legalized.” The bench also added that other directions issued by the HC were not capable such as segregation of vacant land from residential houses and using it for earmarked purposes like school premises.
In this case, the contesting respondents were in unauthorized possession of the land, which belong to the Gram Panchayat. Eviction proceedings were initiated by filing the ejectment application which was passed against the contesting respondents by the Assistant Collector. The respondents preferred an appeal before the Collector which was rejected as well as a further appeal before the Commissioner was also rejected. The High Court by the impugned judgment and order directed the newly constituted Gram Panchayat to consider the claim of the individual encroachers on merits and take appropriate decisions. They also directed that the Gram Panchayat may, with the prior approval of the State Government, sell its non-cultivable land in Shamlat Deh to the inhabitants of the village, who have constructed their houses. The HC further claimed that “they do not have any residential house and further provided that the constructed area or an appurtenant area upto a maximum of 200 sq. yards.”
Also Read: Legal Articles
The writ petition was disposed of by the HC highlighting that “the authorities need to invoke powers under Rule 12 ibid and determine the market value of the land to the extent it is under occupation of the petitioners – Wherever the vacant area can be segregated from the residential house, it can be separated and utilized for earmarked purpose i.e. school premises.” The appellants preferred a Review Application, which was also dismissed. Pursuant to the order passed by the top Court, fresh demarcation has been undertaken.
The bench stated that it cannot be disputed that the original writ petitioners were in illegal and unauthorized occupation of the Gram Panchayat land to the extent of 5 kanal and 4 Marla out of 11 kanals and 15 Marla reserved for the purpose of the school. However, unauthorized occupation and possession of the land cannot be directed to be legalized. The Apex Court further observed that “the High Court has committed a very serious error in directing to legalize the unauthorized occupation and possession made by the original writ petitioners on payment of market price.” The impugned judgment and order passed by the HC and the directions issued directing to legalize the unauthorized occupation and possession made by the original writ petitioners on the land, which was earmarked for school premises/playground was unsustainable and was accordingly quashed and set aside.
Also Read: Supreme Court Updates
