Tuesday, January 22, 2013

Housing units on shamlat land being sold, inquiry marked


Smriti Sharma Vasudeva : Chandigarh, Tue Jan 01 2013, 23:39 hrs

The illegal sale of housing units on shamlat land, with hints of a possible land scam, has caught the attention of the UT officials who have now marked an inquiry to the UT police into it. 
 
Taking note of the alleged sale racket run by three contractors who “sold” out dwelling units of varying sizes, including two rooms, single room etc on Shamlat land in Dhanas village after taking money of amount between Rs 30,000 - 50,000, the Deputy Commissioner marked an inquiry to the UT police. 
 
The alleged nexus recently caught the attention of the authorities after a team of the UT estate office and the Land Acquisition office went to carry out a demolition drive for razing the marble market in the area. 
 
Several residents of the same area including Raj Samuel, Subey Singh, Hari Krishan, Davinder Singh and others handed over a complaint to the officials there stating that they have paid Rs 30,000 each for a house in the illegal colony. They stated in the letter that they paid the amount after they were “assured” by the sellers that “nobody will move them from their houses”. 
 
Sensing a bigger scam behind this, the Deputy Commissioner cum UT Estate officer on Monday forwarded the complaint letter which mentions the names of three persons who have been taking money to the SSP, UT Police to enquire into the matter and take appropriate action. The complaint letter, also with the Land Acquisition officer Tilak Raj, mentions the names of Ravinder and two others as the ones behind the illegal sale. 
 
Speaking with Chandigarh Newsline, DC Mohammad Shayin said, “We have marked an inquiry to the UT police into the allegations of selling land illegally. Also, since the entire colony has come up on the government land and some of the occupants have stay orders from the court, we will also try to get the stay vacated,” he added. 
 
As per the complaint which has been sent to office of the DC, these houses, over 60 of them have come up in the recent past on the land measuring five acres. 
 
The complaint also states that besides the lump-sum amount paid by ever occupant, the contractor who manages the entire housing is also taking a rent of Rs 600 from each occupant. 

© 2013 The Indian Express Limited. All rights reserved


Monday, January 21, 2013

In Other Courts, New Delhi: Shri Rizak Ram vs Rajeev Singh & Anr on 7 February, 2011


IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Judgment: 07.02.2011
RSA No.51/2004 & CM No.2628/2004

SHRI RIZAK RAM ...........Appellant Through: Mr.N.S. Dalal, Advocate.
Versus           
RAJEEV SINGH & ANR. ..........Respondents.

Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes
INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)

1. This appeal has impugned the judgment and decree dated 5.11.2003 which had endorsed the finding of the trial judge dated 30.10.1998 whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff Rizak Ram seeking injunction against the defendants from interfering in the suit property i.e. the part of land of Khsara No.64/47 measuring 400 sq. yards in Village Alipur, Delhi was dismissed.

2. The case of the plaintiff was that this land was Shyamlat Deh land. Contention of the Gaon Sabha was that this land was Gaon Sabha land; plaintiff having no right or title in the suit land; no injunction can be granted in his favour. On the basis of oral and documentary evidence led, the suit of the plaintiff stood dismissed.

In appeal the appellate Court had endorsed this finding.
3. This is a second appeal. Arguments urged before this Court is that under Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1887 Shyamlat Deh refers to land which is in common ownership of the proprietors of the village. It is contended that this land cannot be treated as Goan Sabha land; if it is to be treated as a common land under the proprietorship of the village. The impugned judgment had noted this argument. Para 8 which is relevant reads as follows:
"8. With a enactment and advent of Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 several Acts which were earlier applicable in Delhi have been repeated by virtue of provision contain in section 2 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act and that includes Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1987, Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1997 and Punjab Tenant (Security of Tenure Act) 1950 etc. In these circumstances, the contention of Ld. Counsel for the appellant that the definition of Shyamlat Deh can be taken in the Punjab Land Reforms Act or Punjab Tenant Act seems untenable especially in view of the fact that the Delhi Panchayat Raj Act, 1954 has taken care of the land falling into the domain of Shyamlat Deh, Section 2(15) of the said Act provides the definition Public Land or Common Land as the land which is not on exclusive use of any individual or family but is common use of villagers and includes the land entered as "Shymalat Deh‟ in revenue records. Thus, the contention of the counsel for the appellant stands demolished as far as definition or Shyamlat Deh is concerned. It is evident that the land which has been shown in records is Shyamlat Deh is nothing but the land of common utility and ownership of that cannot vest in any individual or set of individuals."

4. The Court below had rightly noted that Section 2 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act 1954 had repealed the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1887. The definition of Shyamlat Deh cannot be derived from this repealed provision. Under the Delhi Panchayat Raj Act, 1954 Section 2(15) defines "public land" or "common land". Section 2(15) reads as follows:

(15) "public land or common land" means that the land which is not in exclusive use of any individual or family but is in common use of villagers and includes a land entered as Shamilat deh in revenue records;"
5. This definition as contained in Delhi Panchayat Raj Act, 1954 defines shamilat deh as land to be common land which is public land not to be in exclusive use of any individual or family but which is in the common use of the villagers.
6. Explanation (ii) of Section 7 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 defines "lands of common utility". This includes such lands as are recorded as such at the last settlement or have been or would have been customarily recorded as such on 1st July, 1950. Section 7(2) states that on the commencement of the Delhi Land Reforms act, 1954, all such lands will vest with the Gaon Sabha.

7. The impugned judgment in a subsequent part of the judgment had in this context inter alia held as follows:
”Section 7 of the Act is very categorical and clear about the fact that the right of individual proprietor or proprietor pertaining to waste land grazing or collection of forest due etc. and such other land of common utility shall be terminated on the commencement of Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954. The explanation attached to Section 7 in Clause c(ii) defines the land of common utility and as per that the land recorded in the last settlement as such would be part of the land of common utility. The documents placed on record specially khasra girdavari and other revenue records show the land in question as Shyamlat Deh which, as per the definition in Delhi Panchayat Raj Act is land of common utility. Therefore the opinion/finding given by the Ld. Trial Court is nothing but an elaboration and clarification of the legal position qua the land in question. Therefore, in these circumstances the finding given by the Ld. Trial Court cannot be upset."

8. Substantial questions of law have been formulated on page 15 of the appeal. They reads as follows:
(i)What is the meaning of the word “Shamlet Deh‟ and interpretation thereof?
(ii)If the word “Shamlet Deh‟ is not being defined under the provisions of Delhi Land Reforms Act, can an assistance be not drawn from other Statute, more particularly from where it has been so derived or where it has been so inserted.?
(iii) What is the true meaning and effect of Section 7 of Delhi Land Reforms Act?
(iv) Whether Section 7 of Delhi Land Reforms Act can be made applicable in the absence of the things which are mandated to be done has not been done?
(v)Whether, in the absence of any such order being passed as has been so mentioned in Section 7, can still Section 7 be made applicable in the absence of the same?
(vi) If the provisions of Section 7 have not been followed nor any such order has been passed, can any effect be given thereby holding that Section 7 is still applicable?
(vii) If a person is in possession of the land and the land is of the proprietors, can he be denied the right of injunction, which he is so seeking for?
(viii) Whether the rights of the proprietors can be taken away or divested without the authority of law?
(ix) Is not Section 7 otherwise unconstitutional and violative of the fundamental rights of the appellant as it violates the rights so recognized by the Constitution as well as recognized by other statutes and by the common law?
(x) Whether the learned Appellate court was not duty bound to discuss and dispose of the appeal thereby considering all the ground so taken by the appellant in the appeal and what is the effect of not deciding the grounds so taken by the appellant in the appeal?
(xi) Can any section be made applicable in the absence of the conditions of its applicability are fulfilled and also more particularly when its conditions are not being pleaded?
(xii) Can any finding be recorded by the Courts in the absence of the pleadings, more particularly when there is factual foundation which is necessary for the applicability of particular Section?
(xiii) Whether the findings qua Sections 2 and 7 of Delhi Land Reforms Act as well as Section 99 of Delhi Panchayat Raj Act could have been recorded in the absence of factual foundation being pleaded and proved?
(xiv) What is the effect of maintenance of the records by the Authorities? If the Authorities are maintaining the records as per law, can the same be discarded by the Courts as has been so done.
(xv) Can interpretative process be used to discard the records of the rights so maintained by the Authorities, more particularly when it is being so done by them in the discharge of the official duties? Should not the presumption be attached to its correctness?
(xvi) As per the record, when the land has been recorded as Shamlet Deh, meaning thereby belonging to the proprietors as per their pro-rata share, then how the finding can be recorded qua the applicability of Delhi Land Reforms Act of the land being vested in the Gaon Sabha?
(xvii) If the records of the rights are being so maintained by the Authorities showing the proprietors as owners showing the land being belonging to the proprietors, can the same be ignored altogether and that too without any basis or meaning thereby does not it amount to creating a different sort of rights, which are not being so recognized by the law?"

9. No such substantial questions of law having arisen, the appeal as also the pending application is dismissed.
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
FEBRAURY 07, 2011
nandan




Friday, January 18, 2013

Jhamat land scam: Eviction cases filed against encroachers


Anshu Seth, Hindustan Times
Ludhiana , January 16, 2013

An inquiry conducted by Ludhiana deputy commissioner Rahul Tewari into the pond encroachment at Jhamat village part of the Rs. 200-crore land scam - has found 11 persons guilty of constructing houses on the pond land. Block development and panchayat officer (BDPO) Ranjit Singh has filed eviction cases against Gurcharan Singh, Tarishan Singh, Shamsher Singh, Harbans Kaur former sarpanch Sukhpal Singh's wife Ishar Singh, Gurcharan Singh, Balbir Singh, Shamsher Singh, Sukhpal Singh, Major Singh and Kewal Singh.

HT has highlighted the scam in a series of stories, including 'Rural dept fails to act in Jhamat land scam' (October 1, 2012) and 'Whistleblower put in jail, kin allege police atrocity (December 11).

The whistleblowers in the scam, Gurmukh Singh and Gurpal Singh, had filed a writ in the Punjab and Haryana high court against the department of rural development and panchayats, Punjab, Ludhiana DC, district development and panchayat officer (DDPO), BDPO and the Jhamat gram panchayat.

Justice Rajiv Bhalla and justice Rekha Mittal, in their judgment dated July 5, 2012, had ruled in favour of Gurmukh Singh, thereby directing the Ludhiana DC to conduct an inquiry into the matter after associating the complainant as well as the respondents, and to initiate remedial proceedings to retrieve land if the inquiry revealed that land had been encroached upon.

The DC sent a team of the DDPO (Ludhiana) BDPO (Ludhiana-2), the panchayat secretary and the village patwari to trace old records relating to the village and conduct on-the-spot demarcation of the pond. The old records and a map of 1882 showed that the pond area was 2 acres, 1 kanal and 17 marlas. In an order passed in 2002 by then additional deputy commissioner (development), 2 kanal and 8 marlas of land was allotted to the persons found guilty of encroachment.

Meanwhile, DC Rahul Tewari said an appeal against the order of the additional deputy commissioner (development) had been filed in the court of the director, rural development and panchayats, Punjab.

"A case against the encroachers under the Public Premises (eviction of unauthorised occupants) Act, 1971, has been registered in the collector's court. We have also sent a complaint to the director, rural development and panchayats, against the previous panchayat for not taking action to retrieve the panchayati pond," the DC added.



Thursday, January 10, 2013

Hesaraghatta PIL — Karnataka High Court Orders Parties to Maintain Status Quo Until Further Notice


Wednesday, January 9th, 2013 at 9:24 am

In September 2012, a group of concerned citizens led by photographer Mahesh Bhat, who lives near the Hesaraghatta grasslands in Bangalore had initiated an  online campaign to save 300 acres from getting converted into a film city. Earlier, the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) had planted several thousand saplings in almost half of the grassland (See ‘Killing a Grassland‘). The misguided seemingly good-intentioned approach was stopped thanks to an outcry from conservationists in the city but not before considerable damage was done.

The grasslands needs to be protected for posterity from such misguided  initiatives.


Subsequently Mahesh and his colleagues from the Arkavathy and Kumudvathy River Rejuvenation trust had met the then chief minister, the chief secretary, and other senior officials on this subject too. The department of Information who is responsible to build the film city on this land had even sent our petition to the government. But there was no response. Hence the trust filed a PIL in the high court of Karnataka (WP45759/2012) in December 2012.

The PIL came up for hearing before the division bench of the acting Chief Justice and Justice Nagarathna on 4th January, 2013. The Hon’ble court has admitted the petition and issued notices to the govt. The bench has also asked status quo to be maintained till further orders. We hope that the final verdict will favour the environment and not mindless and insensitive development in a fragile ecosystem.

About Hesaraghatta
The grasslands near Hesaraghatta is the last remaining grassland in and around Bangalore. These grasslands are a unique and threatened ecosystem that supports very specialized flora and fauna including birds of prey that migrate from Europe and Central Asia in winter as well as the recently rediscovered schedule 1 species Lesser Florican (Sypheotides indicus) –- one of India’s most threatened birds. These life forms will disappear when the grasslands are destroyed or disturbed.

In a recent report, a committee constituted by the Planning Commission has stated that “grasslands and deserts are the most neglected ecosystems by the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF), which looks after biodiversity conservation in India”.

http://www.conservationindia.org/news/hesaraghatta-pil-karnataka-high-court-orders-parties-to-maintain-status-quo-until-further-notice 

Tuesday, January 8, 2013

How private players grabbed forest land in the Aravalis

By Dipak Kumar Dash, TNN | Jan 7, 2013, 04.24 AM IST
NEW DELHI: A law that was meant to reverse fragmentation of agricultural land, appears to have been rampantly abused in Haryana to allow influential private players get possession of hilly and non-agricultural common lands, including forests in the Aravalis close to the national capital.

The law in question is the Consolidation Act, enacted to consolidate agricultural holdings of farmers who own land in small patches spread over an area and for preserving the village commons. Officials said in Faridabad and Gurgaon districts of Haryana, this law had been twisted to give outsiders vast tracts of common hilly land and forests, including the pristine grove of Mangar Bani held sacred by villagers.

According to records accessed by TOI, the modus operandi was exposed a few months ago by Ashok Khemka, who, as the director general of land records had also cancelled an unrelated land deal involving Robert Vadra. For the first time in Haryana, Khemka challenged the practice of partitioning of common hilly land, via the consolidation process and denotified it in two cases - at villages Kot and Roz-ka-Gujjar - in August 2012.
The then director general of land records, in his order on Faridabad's Kot village, said the consolidation exercise carried out in the entire village, including its 'gair mumkin pahaar' (common hill), would wrongly benefit certain "influential outsider-purchasers".
"The aims and objects of the Consolidation Act are to consolidate agricultural holdings for the betterment of agriculture, for prevention of fragmentation of agricultural holdings and for reservation of land for common purposes of the village," the order said.
The officer wrote that of the total area of 3,184 acres notified for consolidation in Kot, 2,565 acres fell under common hill area and the inclusion of this portion would "defeat" the purpose of consolidation.

Even more blatant was the case of Roz-ka-Gujjar - an uninhabitated and mostly forested hill completely located in the Aravalis which formed the main catchment of the Damdama lake in Gurgaon. Of the 5,744 acres brought under consolidation in this village, close to 4,798 acres were notified under Sections 4 and 5 of the Punjab Land Preservation Act (PLPA).Under the Forest Conservation Act, land under these two notifications cannot be diverted for any use other than forest related activities without permission of the Union environment and forest ministry.
Khemka in his order had pointed out that quite a large portion of the land in Roz-ka-Gujjar had been mined for stone, ordinary sand and silica sand prior to 2002. There were 50-60 feet deep mining pits in certain pockets. In his order, the IAS officer also observed that the village was 'be-chirag' (uninhabited) and there was a single khewat (record) consisting of more 1,000 co-owners having joint share in the entire area of 5,744 acres. He also pointed out that not a single square inch of the land under consolidation had been cultivated for a long time.
Expectedly, hardly any locals figured in the names of the co-sharers. Almost the entire area had been purchased by the "powerful business-politico-bureaucratic-police nexus with ostensibly no interest in agricultural, cultivation activities". Moreover, some land transactions seemed benami on behalf of a few powerful politicians and bureaucrats, Khemka had pointed out.
The officer, who was allegedly shunted out for hurting higher-ups, had recorded in his order that since there was no land under agricultural activity, there was no fragment of land to consolidate. "On a perusal of the consolidation records, it is apparent that the scope of the Consolidation Act has been extended as a tool of partition. The single joint khewat has been divided into some 640 khataunis (accounts) and specific khasra numbers allotted to them," Khemka's wrote.
The order said the use of the Consolidation Act to partition a joint single khewat was "a grotesque abuse". Even retired officials from revenue department posted in the NCR said lands falling under hills or drains were nobody's property and could not be fragmented. This law has been violated in many cases including Mangar, which has a sacred forest protected by local Gujjar villagers. Sources said the process of consolidation and then division of this common land/hill was completed long ago, enabling several to buy huge chunks of land.

With the Mangar development plan 2031 likely to be notified soon, these players are expecting big gains in the form of escalated property prices."The Haryana government should review the status of the common lands in the more than 100 villages of southern Haryana and secure such land that should be preserved for future generations," said Chetan Agarwal, a forest analyst.
In the light of recent Supreme Court judgments that say common lands should not be privatized, the sale of lands around Mangar and other villages should be retrospectively reviewed and if necessary, reversed, said Colonel Sarvadaman Oberoi, a legal activist fighting to save the Aravalis.

With the Mangar development plan 2031 likely to be notified soon, these players are expecting big gains in the form of escalated property prices.
Copyright © 2013 Bennett, Coleman & Co. Ltd. All rights reserved.


























Monday, January 7, 2013

In Other Courts, Punjab: Makhan Masih vs State Of Punjab And Others...7 November, 2012


IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
C.W.P. No.14121 of 2011
Date of Decision: NOVEMBER 7, 2012
 
Makhan Masih......Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others......Respondents


CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. VK Sandhir, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Ms. Anu Pal, AAG, Punjab for the State.
Mr. Vipin Mahajan, Advocate, for respondent No.4.
 


RANJIT SINGH, J.
The petitioner, who is Panch, was suspended on 29.4.2011 on the ground that he is in illegal occupation of the Panchayat land, where he constructed a shop. As per the counsel for the petitioner, the said order is based on the finding returned by the authorities on an application under Section 7 of Punjab Village Common Land (Regulating) Act (for short 'the Act') filed by a private person. The said order of the Collector & Commissioner, is stayed by this Court in CWP No.12351 of 2011. The submission made by C.W.P. No.14121 of 2011 -2- the counsel for the petitioner is that since the application under Section 7 of the Act was not maintainable by a private individual, accordingly, any finding returned thereon cannot be considered to order suspension of the petitioner on the ground that he has occupied the Panchayat land over which he has constructed a shop also.

The impugned order passed by the Director Rural Development and Panchayat Department is annexed with the petition as Annenxure P-3. The Director Rural Development and Panchayat Department has received a report from District Development and Panchayat Officer on 4.3.2011, who had earlier received a report form the Block Development & Panchayat Officer on 28.2.2011 where an inquiry against Makhan Masih, Panch Gram Panchayat Sekha, was conducted and it is proved that the Panch has encroached upon two marlas Panchayat land out of Khasra No.76, (1-18) by constructing illegal shop and in this manner he has misused his position.

On the basis of this allegation, the petitioner was put to notice. He was asked to respond to the allegations. The reply submitted by the petitioner was perused and after considering the same it was found that the petitioner has encroached upon two marlas of Panchayat land on the Khasra number as already mentioned. On this basis, the Director Rural Development and Panchayat Department, has placed the petitioner under suspension. The petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of the appellate authority, who has dismissed his appeal.

C.W.P. No.14121 of 2011 -3- In the impugned order, no reference is made to any finding returned under Section 7 of the Act which has been found the basis of placing the petitioner under suspension. Accordingly, this issue does not arise in the present petition. Since the petitioner has placed under suspension on the basis of report, no case for interference in writ jurisdiction of this Court is made out. Dismissed.

November 07, 2012 ( RANJIT SINGH ) monika JUDGE




Tuesday, January 1, 2013

In Other Courts, New Delhi: Jagdish Kaur & Ors v/s Gaon Sabha Kapashera...5th November 2012

Appeal No. 55/07 - Jagdish Kaur & Ors v/s Gaon Sahha Kapashera
IN THE COURT OF DY. COMMISSIONER & COLLECTOR
DISTRICT SOUTH WEST, KAPASHERA, DELHI
Jagdish Kaur & Ors ...................................... Appellant

Vs
Gaon Sabha Kapashera ...................................... Respondent

JUDGEMENT

This shall dispose of the appeal dated 04/04/2007 filed by the appellant here in above u/s 185 of the DLR Act, 1954 against the order dated 05/03/2007 of the SDM/RA (Vasant Vihar) in Case No. 77/RA/97 issued under section 86 - A of the DLR Act, 1954. Vide the said order the SDM/RA has passed the ejectment order against the appellant (herein above) from land bearing Khasra No. 1297 Firni (Rasta) (1-4) situated within the revenue estate of village Kapashera. Aggrieved by the said order appellant has preferred an appeal before this court.

Both the parties were heard at length. The case of the appellant is that the suit land Is sandwiched between his other lands and his request for allotment for deficiency during the consolidation of land in the said village was rejected on the grounds of conclusion of the consolidation proceedings in the village. It is contended that there are number of judgements by the Ho. Supreme Court that person cannot be left with the deficient land during the consolidation and his entitlement has to be completed. Also the piece of land is bifurcating his land which is against his advantage. Secondly, this is not phirni is leading to nowhere. Thirdly, the main contention of the appellant is that he is in possession of the said land since 1990 and hence the present proceedings are time barred as the principle of adverse possession is in their favour. The respondent has argued that if the appellant has any grievance with the consolidation proceedings than this Court is not competent to entertain the same and the appellant could have preferred an appeal before the court of the Financial Commissioner. Secondly, sandwiching of the land is no justification for encroaching the Govt. land. Thirdly, since it is a fact that the appellant is encroaching upon the Govt. land therefore in view of the order of the Hon. Supreme Court in case of Jagpal Singh Jagpal Singh & Ors Vs. State of Punjab and Ors the same should be restored to the Gaon Sabha.


After hearing both the parties and perusing the material on record it is observed that as far as the contention of the appellant regarding the grievances arising out of the Consolidation is concerned the same are beyond the purview of this court. Regarding the bifurcation of the land of the appellant due to the suit land is no justification to encroach upon the Govt. land and hence same does not hold any ground. The main observation in the present matter is that the appellant hereinabove has been encroaching upon the suit land which is a Govt. land since long time. The only plea taken by the appellant is that he is in the adverse possession on suit land which is a Govt land for long time. Therefore, it is argued that the proceedings u/s 86A of DLR Act, 1954 is barred by limitation. In this regard it is observed that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter Hemaji Waghaji Jat v/s Bhikhabhai Khengarbhai Harijan & Others (AIR 2009 SC 103) has held that-

"The law of adverse possession which ousts an owner of the basis of inaction within limitation is irrational , illogical and whollv disproportionate. The law as it exists is extremely harsh for the true owner and a windfall for a dishonest person who had illegally taken possession of the property of the true owner. The law ought not to benefit a person who in a clandestine manner takes possession of the property of the owner in contravention of law. This in substance would mean that the law gives seal of approval to the illegal action or activities of a rank trespasser or who had wrongfully taken possession of the property of the true owner. " Further the Apex Court has gone on to emphasize as to "why the law should place premium on dishonesty by legitimizing possession of a rank trespasser and compelling the owner to loose its possession only because of his inaction in taking back the possession within limitation. "

In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that the appeal of the appellant herein above lacks merit. Further as per the order of the Hon. Supreme Court in Jagpal Singh & Ors Vs. State of Punjab and Ors in Civil Appeal No. 1132/2011 and SLP (c) No. 3109/2011 the encroachers and illegal occupants on the Gram Sabha land needs to be evicted and the Gram Sabha land needs to he retrieved and restored to the Gram Sabha.


Lastly, the present case is a perfect illustration of abuse of law and illegal encroachment. as the petitioner has continued to illegally occupy precious and invaluable Govt. land by adopting multiple dilatory tactics and frivolous excuses to extend his illegal occupation and encroachment. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu vs. Union of India (6 SCC 344: AIR 2005 SC 3353) that costs shall be imposed in a practical and realistic manner. The purpose of costs is not only to indemnify the affected party rather also to create a deterrent effect with respect to frivolous, malafide and unnecessary suits or proceedings. The Courts shall refrain from awarding nominal costs, rather real costs and in proper cases even excessive costs shall he awarded. Hence this order:

ORDER


In view of the observations made in the judgement, the appeal dated 04/04/2007 filed by the appellant here in above u/s 185 of the DLR Act, 1954 against the order dated 05/03/2007 of the SDM/RA (Vasant Vihar) in Case No. 77/RA/97 issued under section 86A of the DLR Act, 1954 is hereby dismissed. The SDM/RA, Kapashera and BDO, South West to take further necessary action in time bound manner for taking possession of the suit land within 15 days.

Further, this illegal encroachment for a long period, and the dilatory tactics to further prolong it, deserves to be penalized and hence, in view of the aforesaid judgement, I deem it fit to impose cost of Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rs. Twenty lakhs) on the appellant hereinabove to be recovered as arrears of land revenue.


Given under my hand and seal of this court on this 05th day of November 2012.


Vikas Anand, IAS
Dy. Commissioner & Collector


Copy to:
1. SDM, Kapashera
2. BDO, South West
3. Both the parties