Thursday, March 21, 2013

Kuldip Singh interim report out


The Tribunal headed by retired Supreme Court Judge, Justice Kuldeep Singh recently submitted its interim report on alleged land grab cases on the periphery of Chandigarh in Punjab.

The report has been submitted on the basis of investigations or enquiries conducted in seven villages out of a total of 336 villages. The Tribunal had been constituted on the orders of Punjab and Haryana High Court in May last year. The case started with a petition filed by a Nayagaon resident, Kuldeep Singh, who had alleged security threat to him by a senior Punjab police cop, trying to grab his land. Kuldeep Singh had alleged that several influential persons had started forcing people to sell their land. Later, Kuldeep Singh had informed the bench that he was not willing to continue with the case. However, the bench decided to continue with it, taking a cognizance of seriousness of the allegations.
Earlier, the bench had directed Punjab ADGP, Chander Shekhar to conduct the investigation. Shekhar pointed out several irregularities in ownership of land by some influential persons. After his retirement, IGP, C S R Reddy took over the investigation and submitted report about the ownership of land by 60 influential persons. Then high court formed the Tribunal to look into possible land grabbing.

Although, the concerned advocates or persons so far remain silent on the report some people say that the Tribunal had not taken the response of the people, it indicted. H.C. Arora, an advocate practising in the Punjab and Haryana High Court, pointed out that it is a principle of natural justice that an accused person is given the opportunity to speak in his own defence.

In its interim report, the Tribunal has held that huge chunk of land on the Chandigarh periphery in Punjab had either been grabbed already or was being grabbed. The report points out the systematic way, in which ownership of thousands of acres, mainly shamlat or government land, had been first changed and then transferred to other people. The report states that in several cases, Revenue Department officials connived in the illegalities. The Tribunal also states that the Director or Additional Director of Consolidation, in collusion with Revenue Department officials, passed orders, which were illegal. He is accused of conspiring to commit fraud.

The report points out that hill or riverine land, which could not be shared, was not only shared by the landowners but also sold, without demarcation or proper division.

The report suggests that records were altered or orders were passed right from 1981 to facilitate fraud. Giving one such example, the report stated that, on the orders of the Additional Director of Consolidation of Holdings, passed on January 16, 1986, a mutation in village Kansal was passed on November 25, 1999 for change of ownership and various subsequent sale deeds were illegal and without jurisdiction. Riverine land, whose ownership vests with the panchayat and which no right holder can cultivate, was changed in the records and treated as jumla mushtarka malkaan (common land where landowners are shareholders).

Based on the orders, the mutation was sanctioned in Revenue records on November 25, 1999, showing the right holders as owners of respective shares. Subsequently the landowners sold their land. Even before the mutation, several influential persons obtained General Power of Attorney for lands in 1998. Such persons included Sonam Kumar; son of then Punjab Governor Lt General (retired) B.K.N. Chhibber, for land measuring 44 kanal, one Harjinder Singh held power of attorney for land measuring 56 kanals while Darshan Kumar held GPA for land measuring about 30 kanals.

Later, in 1998 or early 1999, shares for land measuring about 96 kanals were purchased by Harjinder Singh, Sumedh Singh Saini, S.S. Brar and J.S, Brar.  According to report, through an order on April 10, 2003, six persons got separate khasra girdawaris. But in the entries, the name of Darshan Kumar and Soman Kumar’s names are missing. Sumedh Singh Saini held shares of land measuring 32 kanal. The Punjabi Cooperative Group House Building Society had also purchased 21.2 acres for Rs 8.19 crores and sold it to Tata Housing Development Corporation Limited for about Rs 96.59 crores.

Mentioning village Bartana, the Tribunal report states that on May 9, 1985, Kuldeep Singh Minhas, Director of Consolidation of Holdings, passed orders for distribution of 1104 bigha panchayat land among the people as per their shareholdings and, by ignoring the mutation showing the land as of gram panchayat land. The records show Kuldeep Singh’s own landholding. Thus through his order, he himself became the beneficiary. Further the entry in the records had been found in different ink and prima facie looked to be interpolated. The Tribunal held that the director had no authority to pass orders to work out shares of individuals. The Tribunal also suggested an investigation to establish whether or not the Kuldeep Singh in the Bartana record is the same Kuldeep Singh who held the post of director and, if so, then take suitable action.

The Tribunal report states that in Village Majrian, if found that records were tampered with in connivance with Revenue officials. Some persons were shown as shareholders and received shares vide an order passed by Consolidation Officer on April 22, 1991. These persons, according to the patwari, were fictitious and had been incorporated fraudulently in the records. A large chunk of the land in question was shamlat land, or its was hilly or constituted choe. Hence, The Director of Consolidation was not authorized to pass orders for dividing shares. Later the shares were sold. In 2003, on request of shareholders, land was partitioned. This land is now in possession of several people, among them Captain Amarinder Singh and his mother Mohinder Kaur, and several others. The Tribunal held that the orders passed in 1991 and 2003 were illegal and thus void. The Tribunal recommends punishment for persons responsible for tampering with the records.

Mentioning Village Karoran, now known as Naya Gaon, the Tribunal states that in 1995 sanction was given to mutate shamlat land measuring 22965 kanal lands in favor of Shamsher Singh and others. The Tribunal states that this mutation was illegal. After this mutation, the individuals started selling their shares and sale deeds of Rs 30 to 35 thousand were subsequently registered. In the case of other mutations, the Tribunal also holds them to be illegal as no Revenue official at any time demarcated the shares on the ground. Major shareholders who now own the land in the village included Col B.S. Sandhu, his firms, including World Wide Immigration Consultancy Services and Green Earth Society and his two sons. The Tribunal states that the Sandhu family holds land measuring 4709 kanals.

Referring to another village, Mullanpur Garib Dass, the Tribunal states that for more than 30 years some individuals are locked in a legal dispute with the panchayat over land ownership. Of 476 cases, 425 petitioners have died.

The Tribunal gives a clean chit to Punjab Chief Minister Parkash Singh Badal and Deputy Chief Minister Sukhbir Singh Badal. The report mentions about the Badal family in connection with settlement of land owned in village Lohgarh in Zirakpur. This land was never owned or possessed by the state, panchayet or public authority. The Tribunal also gives a clean chit to the Kairon family for land owned in village Chhat and Kishanpura.

The report submitted by the Tribunal refers to the non cooperative manner of government officials who provided the Tribunal required material after great delay. The report stated that both oral and written requests were made to the concerned police officials to handover the records of investigations made by Chander Shekhar and Reddy. The Tribunal was formed through a High Court order on May 29, 2005. Former Supreme Court Chief Justice Kuldeep Singh, who heads the Tribunal, wrote to the Punjab Inspector General of Police on December 5, 2012 requesting the record. Later, on January 15 and January 30, he again wrote, requesting the record. Later, the Tribunal agreed to take the record on CDs made by Chander Shekhar. However, out of 294 CDs only 47 were provided to him on February 7, 2013.
Stating that the work relating to periphery of Chandigarh only would take a minimum of one year, the Tribunal has left the decision about the extension of its period to the High Court. The Tribunal has however, made suggestions for faster disposal of civil cases. It suggests that orders of civil courts, Consolidation and Revenue authorities be reopened and decided afresh. The Tribunal also suggests a fast track court and special attorneys to handle such cases. The Tribunal has suggested establishment of a special High Court bench to handle the cases.

The Day and night news team talked to Kuldeep Singh, whose petition resulted in the investigation. However, Kuldeep Singh did not seem to be convinced with the investigations.

Kuldeep Singh said that he expected that the Tribunal would give him a hearing to take his version on the sequence of incidents that forced him to move to High Court. The High Court has set the next hearing of the case for March 25 when the bench would decide on need of further probe or next line of action.

Copyright© Kansan News Private Limited. All rights reserved.
http://www.dayandnightnews.com/2013/03/kuldip-singh-interim-report-out/








Wednesday, March 20, 2013

2,870 acres of shamlat deh land at Karoran village grabbed: Tribunal


RAGHAV PHRI: Chandigarh, Sat Mar 16 2013, 01:15 hrs
Mullanpur Garibdas and Mirzapur being usurped by multinationals and politicians'

A whopping 2,870 acres of shamlat deh (common village) land is under unauthorised occupation at Karoran (Nayagaon) village. The land has been grabbed by 4,097 persons. Appalled at the "havoc being caused on the spot where the land is changing hands through various general power of attorneys and sale deeds", the Judicial Tribunal has recommended that the said land be returned to the Gram Panchayat.
The tribunal, constituted to probe alleged illegal properties owned by several high-ups in the city's periphery, has recommended strict action against the land grabbers, revenue authorities and those presiding over the civil courts for allowing the "land scam".
The tribunal has referred to several thousand sale deeds which have been registered illegally since 1995. "This (illegal registration) is being multiplied even now. Since the shares of the so-called share-holders were never demarcated on the ground, no revenue official gave to the share-holders the nishan dehi (demarcation) or physical possession of the area," reads the 42-page report submitted to the High Court earlier this week.
Holding the authorities guilty of allowing illegal change in the revenue records, the tribunal has held that "looked from any angle, the land in dispute has throughout been village common land and as such vested with the Gram Panchayat and its ownership could not be changed in favour of the landowners by the Assistant Collector and the mutation is obviously illegal, without jurisdiction and liable to be ignored".
The Patwari of the said village told the tribunal that "on their own the purchasers of shares from the share-holders took possession of certain areas without any authority of law. The share-holders have sold their shares to different persons indiscriminately".
Referring to Col (retd) B S Sandhu, the tribunal has held that "the largest number of shares were purchased by Col (retd). B S Sandhu, his family and his societies/corporations. Col B S Sandhu is occupying the totality of the 4,709 kanals of land. No partition of the land was held by any authority. Col Sandhu took possession of the huge chunk of land without any authority of law. We are prima facie of the view that the original mutations post which Sandhu purchased the land are without jurisdiction and illegal. The subsequent vendees are illegal".
The properties which have come under the scanner of the tribunal are: World Wide Immigration Consultancy Services (WWICS); World Wide Immigration Resort; Green Earth Society; and Dashmesh Educational Society.
"Apart from Col B S Sandhu, there are large numbers of other occupants who are having farm houses etc illegally," reads the report regarding Karoran village.
However, Col (retd) Sandhu said the land in question was "not a shamlat land any more and stood vested with the right holders of the village from whom we had purchased the land". Referring to High Court judgments which already have settled the "dispute", Col (retd) Sandhu said "the right holders were competent to sell their land since the same never belonged to the Panchayat of village Karoran. "The land owners have been cultivating the land in question even before 1950 and have been in its possession".
Mullanpur Garib Das Village, Mohali
Expressing serious concern over the increasing unauthorised occupation of village common land, the tribunal has sought High Court intervention to save the village from further illegal occupation.
"Village Mullanpur Garib Dass is very strategically situated village and has acquired considerable importance. Large number of multinationals have taken up lands in and around this village and are in process of constructing flats etc," reads the report. The tribunal has drawn attention of the court towards litigation of 2,295 bigha, 15 biswas of shamlat deh (common village) land which has been hanging fire for the past three decades. Stating that "it (litigation) must come to an end", the tribunal has requested the High Court to transfer the case to one of the special courts.
Mirzapur Village
Demonstrating the modus operandi, the report states that "shamlat land/panchayat and other public land is being purchased in large chunks by various persons/corporations from the right holders who have illegally obtained their shares on the basis of the collusive and illegal court decree". Hitting out at the civil courts for ordering decrees, the tribunal has held that the civil courts were not competent to entertain such cases. The tribunal has highlighted an instance wherein "fraud" was committed by the revenue authorities in connivance with the villagers. "Thereafter the right holders started selling their shares indiscriminately to various persons. Some of the purchasers are: Late Lachhman Singh Kalka, former MLA, MP and his sons who purchased 157 acres 6 kanals".
Copyright © 2013 The Indian Express ltd. All Rights Reserved


Thursday, March 14, 2013

Report: Massive chunks of land under unauthorised occupation


Express news service: Chandigarh, Thu March 14 2013, 2:32 hrs

Confirming that massive chunks of land are under unauthorised occupation in the city's periphery, the Tribunal constituted to find out alleged illegal properties owned by high-ups in periphery submitted its report to the Punjab and Haryana High Court, on Wednesday.


The interim report has been submitted after perusing land records of several villages in the city's periphery. 


As per sources, the Tribunal — headed by Justice (retd) Kuldip Singh h — has found thousands of acres of land to be under illegal occupation. Names of few high-ups also figure in the interim report. 


As the matter came up for resumed hearing today, a division bench took the report on record and asked the Punjab government to file its response by March 26. Several chunks of shamlat deh land and village common land has been grabbed by influential persons. A copy of the report was not made available today. 


On May 30, 2012, the High Court had set up a Judicial Tribunal to find out the alleged illegal properties owned by high-ups in the city's periphery and other parts of Punjab.


In an embarrassment to the Punjab government, which had been investigating the case for the past five years, the High Court had expanded the scope of investigation from city's periphery to other districts in Punjab where village or common land has been grabbed or sold by high-ups or private persons. 


The Tribunal comprises retired Supreme Court Judge, Justice Kuldip Singh and assisted by Advocate P N Aggarwal, an expert in property cases, and B N Gupta, retired District and Sessions Judge (DSJ) from Haryana. The Tribunal was given four months to submit its report. 


The High Court had, while setting up the Tribunal, also directed Punjab to provide a place for functioning and infrastructure to the Tribunal in two weeks. Making it clear that the Tribunal would give findings on the nature of land allegedly grabbed by people, the HC had ruled that legal questions pertaining to cases will be left open by the Tribunal. If the Tribunal finds illegality committed in certain cases, it will be at liberty to recommend criminal action against the culprits. 


Significantly, the High Court had also included jumla mushtarkan malkhan land other than shamlat / forest/ nazool land which were already under the HC scanner. 


The inclusion of jumla mushtarkan malkhan land assumes significance since the Punjab government had given a clean chit to its bureaucrats and politicians who had transferred/ sold such land. The Court had also remarked that there is no provision in the rules pertaining to sale of shamlat land or jumla mushtarkan malkhan land.



Copyright ©2013 The Indian Express ltd. All Rights Reserve


Monday, March 11, 2013

Revenue dept officials told to go tough on Govt land encroachers


FRIDAY, 08 MARCH 2013 19:04 STAFF REPORTER | BHOPAL

Bhopal Collector Nikunj Shrivastava has directed revenue department officials to take firm action against those encroaching upon Government land. The Collector passed the direction during a meeting in a camp organised at Sukhi Sewania village in Fanda block of the district on Thursday.

The camp was organised as a part of the ongoing administrative exercise to organise Collector's camp at the village panchayat level in the district.

"Strict action against encroachment over Government land should be taken. If required, the encroachers should be be put behind bars. Actions against powerful and influential persons who are found to be encroaching over government land should be taken first," the collector said.

At the camp in Sukhi Sewania, 196 applications was presented by the residents before the Collector for consideration. Shrivastava discussed the problems of the villagers and gave relevant instructions to the respective officials.

A total of 86 applications at the camp were regarding inclusion of names in the BPL list. The Collector directed the officials to probe the applications and take actions in the matter within the requisite time. Besides, 81 applications were about land ownership, 10 about pensions and other applications.

Later, the Collector also held discussions with the local residents. The residents were also informed about various schemes under different departments of the Government including rural development, agriculture, co-operatives, school education, public health and family welfare and other departments.


Copyright © 2011 The Pioneer. All Rights Reserved.

Friday, March 8, 2013

Tivim panchayat ‘flouts’ HC order


Illegal structures on comunidade land rise from 6 to 36, claim locals
TEAM HERALD
bureau@herald-goa.com

PORVORIM: While recent attempts have been made to remove encroachments on comunidade land in Margao, a High Court order directing the Tivim panchayat to demolish structures illegally built on comunidade land is yet to be implemented since 2010.

Efforts by a group of locals to petition 12 different offices, right from the panchayat to the governor, in this regard have met with little success so far and locals have claimed that the number of encroachments have shot up from six to 36 in the past three years.

Speaking to Herald, United Citizens of Tivim President Jacinto Sequeira stated that the Tivim Panchayat is yet to act on the High Court order directing the panchayat to demolish structures illegally built on the comunidade land in the village.

The High Court, in its order dated July 7, 2010, had directed the Tivim panchayat to demolish the illegal structures built on the comunidade land, where there is no ad interim relief operating in appeals. The panchayat has still not acted on the order,” said Sequeira.

Sequeira had filed a writ petition in the High Court alleging that “the land belonging to Tivim comunidade was illegally usurped by various encouragements for housing purpose, which is against the Provisions of Goa Land (Prohibition of Construction Act 1995).”

In the affidavit dated April 17, 2010, filed before the High Court, the Tivim Panchayat stated that it had issued demolition notices to illegal encroachers on November 7, 2009, and had directed the encroachers to demolish the illegal structures, but could not take further action as the encroachers challenged the demolition notices by preferring appeals before the Additional Director of Panchayat and obtained ex-party interim relief.

In fact, the then Deputy Collector & SDO Mapusa Johnson Fernandes had pulled up the Administrator of Comunidade, North Zone, for not taking any action against the illegal structures.

In his strongly-worded letter dated March 17, 2009 to the Administrator of Comunidade, Fernandes stated: “You are very much empowered to initiate action in terms of the Act 1995 and it appears that your office has remained a silent spectator to ongoing illegal construction which acts as a potential encouragement for others to induce into acts of carrying on with additional constructions.”

Sequeira said he had raised the issue of the illegal construction in 2009 with the authorities concerned when only six houses were built.

Now during the last 3 years, 36 houses have come up on comunidade land but nobody is bothered to take any action against them despite order from the High Court. All the appeals of the encroachers have been disposed off, but no action has been taken by concerned authorities,” added Sequeira.

Armed with the High Court order, the United Citizens Forum petitioned the governor, chief minister, revenue minister, Tivim MLA, chief secretary, secretary of Directorate of Panchayats, Director of Panchayats, Collector (North), Block Development Officer, Mamlatdar, Tivim Panchayat and the Administrator of Comunidade (Bardez), requesting them to get the encroachments demolished.

Our efforts to get authorities to demolish the encroachments have been in vain and the failure to implement the court order amounts to contempt of court,” stated Sequeira.

When contacted, Tivim Sarpanch Tulshidas Shinde stated that the panchayat had not acted on the High Court order, as those involved in the encroachments had appealed in the court.

When asked which court he was referring to, Shinde said: “I will have to check up with the advocate”.



Thursday, March 7, 2013

IN THE COURT OF DY. COMMISSIONER & COLLECTOR DISTRICT SOUTH WEST, KAPASHERA, DELHI


Appeal NNo. 03!07
Kaptan Singh v/s Gaon Sal-ha Palain

IN THE COURT OF DY. COMMISSIONER & COLLECTOR
DISTRICT SOUTH WEST, KAPASHERA, DELHI
Kaptan Singh... Appellant
Vs.
Gaon Sabha Palam... Respondent

JUDGEMENT

This shall dispose of the appeal dated 03.01.2007 filed by the appellant here in above u/s 185 of the DLR Act, 1954 against the order dated 23.12.2006 of the SDM/RA (Delhi Cantt.) in Case No. 1699/89 issued under section 86-A of the DLR Act, 1954. Vide the said order the SDM/RA has ejected the Appellant from the suit land bearing Khasra No. 71/123/1 (1-18) situated within the revenue estate of village Palam. Aggrieved by the said order the appellant has preferred an appeal before this court.

The appellant who has filed the appeal against the impugned order dated 23.12.2006, on 03.01.2007 has filed an application on 18.12.2012 seeking withdrawal of the appeal stating that the appellant does not want to continue with the appeal in view of the judgement dated 22.02.2012 in Civil Suit No. 74/2007 filed by him pertaining to the suit land. Counsel for the Gram Sabha has strongly opposed the application and prayed for dismissal of the said application.

From perusal of the photocopy of the order placed on record, it is evident that appellant filed the present appeal challenging the order of the SDM dated 23.12.2006 by preferring an appeal on 03.01.2007 and was all along pursuing the said appeal before this Court and have mischievously, fraudulently sought withdrawal by filing the present application. Perusal of the photocopy of the judgement dated 22.02.2012 in Civil Suit No. 74/2007 shows that the appellant instituted the Civil Suit No. 74/07 on 22.03.2007 after filing and pursuing constantly and vigorously the present appeal. As the said order nowhere mentions
about filing and pendency of the present appeal by the appellant u/s 185 of the DLR Act, 1954 which the appellant has filed on 03.01.2007 challenging the order of the Ld. SDM dated 23.12.2006; it is obvious and evident that appellant concealed the material fact of filing and pursuing the appeal before this court.

Further from the array of parties, it is evident that appellant has made Union of India and SDM/Revenue Assistant as parties/respondents. The appellant has concealed the material fact with regard to filing of the present appeal challenging the order of the SDM/RA and was also pursuing vigorously present appeal u/s 185 of the DLR Act and have placed the photocopy of order dated 22.02.2012 of the Civil Court on 18.12.2012 alleging that Civil Court has declared the order dated 23.12.2006 as illegal and unlawful and prayed for withdrawal of the present appeal.

Fraudulent conduct of the appellant is writ large on the face of it. One who comes to the Court must come with clean hands. Appellant herein has not only concealed filing and pursuing of the present appeal before this court but all along the trial continued with the present appeal by concealing filing of the civil suit No. 74/07 by arraying different parties before the Civil Court and at the same time continuing with the present appeal u/s 185 of the DLR Act.

A fraud is an act of deliberate deception with the design of securing something by taking unfair advantage of another. It is a deception in order to gain by another's loss & it is a cheating intended to get an advantage which in the present case has been practiced by the appellant after filing the present appeal u/s 185 of the DLR Act. 1954. During the entire proceedings, appellant did not disclose or averred about filing of civil suit No. 74/07 for declaration. Obviously, under the law, appellant cannot pursue & challenge the impugned order before the civil court after filing the present appeal on 03.01.2007.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu Versus Jagannath 1994
AIR 853 and 1994 SCC (1), the ratio decendi of which applies to the present case, has clearly held that a person whose case is based on falsehood has no right to pursue the remedy by concealing the material facts. Such a person can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation. It is evident that the appellant herein who has filed the present appeal never disclosed about filing of the civil suit No. 74/07 against the order dated 23.12.2006 before the Civil Court and even after the judgement dated 22.02.2012 only moved an application for withdrawal of the appeal on the ground that civil court has declared the impugned order dated 23.12.2006 as illegal and unlawful. After filing and pursuing the present appeal on 03.01.2007; appellant is estopped from approaching any other court/authorities while pursuing the present appeal and therefore, conduct. action of the appellant are fraudulent in my considered opinion. Therefore, application of the appellant filed on 18.12.2012 seeking permission to withdraw the appeal is dismissed with cost of Rs. 1,00.000/-.

Having dismissed the said application, now I propose to dispose of the said appeal filed by the appellant on merits. Appellant in his appeal has alleged that the suit land is ancestral property in possession of ancestors of appellant and despite enactment of DLR Act.. 1954. appellant were not dispossessed and the proceedings initiated on report of Halqua Patwari is incorrect, against the records and barred by time even if land has been declared having vested in Gram Sabha. He has further alleged that there is no evidence on record to show that land belongs to Gram Sabha or at any stage vested in Gram Sabha. There is no material on the record to rebut the right, title of the appellant and yet without any reasoning and record, SDM has passed the impugned order in a mechanical manner and so the findings are perverse.

I have heard the Ld. Counsels for appellant and respondent and have carefully gone through the impugned order dated 23.12.2006. The appellant in the present appeal has not averred or whispered with regard to initiation of proceedings u/s 86A of DLR Act on the report of Halqua Patwari dated 22.09.1989. These proceedings as recorded were subsequently dropped earlier by the SDM vide his order dated 15.01.2000 and subsequently on the appeal of Gram Sabha, Palam were remanded by the then Collector
(SW) to the SDM to decide the case in accordance with law.

Then Ld. Collector considered the plea of both the parties and ordered that the suit land is recorded in the name of the Gram Sabha and section 86-A was held applicable to the suit land. Therefore, proceedings were re-initiated on the order of remand by the Collector dated 20.11.2000. There is no averment on the part of the appellant that the order of remand and vesting of suit land in the Gram Sabha u/s 86-A and its applicability was challenged by the appellant before the Financial Commissioner.

Accordingly on initiation of the proceedings, opportunities were given so both the parties i.e. Gram Sabha & Shri Bhim Singh (deceased i.e. respondent) who asserted only on his physical possession by submitting copy of Khatauni Paimaish for the year. 1953-54. The Gram Sabha has forcefully rebutted the right, title or interest of the appellant in the land and contended about his unlawful possession. He further stressed that report of Halqua Patwari is correct which asserts the title of land in name of Gram Sabha, Palam as per revenue record. Further, the report of the Halqua Patwari dated 22.09.1989 and 21.01.1994, copies of Khasra Girdawari for the years 1988-1989, 1994-95, and 1986-87 dated 19.10.1989, 26.12.2000 and 03.01.2001 respectively, copy of Khatoni for the year 2002-03 dated 13.07.2005, and the latest report of Halqua Patwari dated 20.12.2006 reiterates the title of the land in favour of Gram Sabha, Palam at Khasra No. 71/23 /1(1-18).

After hearing the parties and perusing the material on record I am of the considered opinion that there is no infirmity in the impugned order dated 23/12/2006 and there is no doubt that the respondents therein were encroaching upon the Govt land. Further, the Hon. Supreme Court in case of Jagpal Singh & Ors Vs. State of Punjab and Ors in Civil Appeal No. 1132/2011 and SLP(c) No. 3109/2011 has taken a serious view of such encroachments and directed the authorities that the encroachers and illegal occupants on the Gram Sabha land needs to be evicted and the Gram Sabha land needs to be retrieved and restored to the Gram Sabha. The plea of the appellant that proceedings are barred by time is also devoid of any merit. Hence the order:

ORDER

In view of the observations made in the judgement I am of the opinion that the appeal of the appellant hereinabove is devoid any merit. Accordingly the same is dismissed and the occupants stand ejected u/s 86A of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954. The BDO is hereby directed to take necessary action and evict the illegal occupants within 2 weeks. Further, as detailed above, application of the appellant filed on 18.12.2012 seeking permission to withdraw the appeal is dismissed with cost of Rs. 1,00,000/-. Cost to be recovered as arrears of land revenue.

Given under my hand and seal of this court on this 14th day of January, 2013.
Vikas Anand, IAS
Dy. Commissioner & Collector
Copy to:
  1. SDM, Dwarka
  2. BDO, South West
  3. Both the parties



Tuesday, March 5, 2013

Lok Adalat directs Dakshin Kannada District to present status of the Lakes and Water Quality Reports


LAKE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

Email: ceolda2002@gmail.com Ph. No. 2559 0097/98

No. LDA/CEO/LokAdalat/2011-12
Office of the Chief Executive Officer,
Lake Development Authority
2nd Floor, Parisara Bhawan, # 49
Chruch Street, Bangalore – 01
Dated: 01/03/2012
To,
The Deputy Commissioner

Sir,
Sub: Status of lakes and Water Quality Reports in the Town Municipal limits under the District Administration jurisdiction – reg.
Ref:
  1. Order passed by the Lok Adalat dated 07.01.2012 in W.P. No. 13473/1998 C/w WP 33645/1998 (PIL)
  2. Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P. No. 31343/95 (GM-PIL)
  3. Hon'ble Supreme Court Order of India in Civil Appeal No.1132/2011@SLP(C) No.3109/2011 dated 28.01.2011
-----

With reference to the above subject and reference letters therein the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka vide their interim order and Hon'ble Supreme Court have issued directions to preserve and conserve the lakes in the State. In the light of the above, the Hon'ble Lok Adalat has directed to submit the present status of lakes as well as latest Water Quality reports as on to-day within the jurisdictional limits of city/town Municipality under District Administration. A Consolidated Statement is to be prepared and submitted by Lake Development Authority before the Hon'ble Lok Adalat on the basis of the information about the status of lakes within your jurisdiction.

Therefore, you are requested to direct the concerned officers to fill up the details of lakes in the enclosed format for the Status of the Lakes as well as Water Quality reports on or before 15th March 2012, without fail. The information should also be sent in soft copy or through Email I.D. ceolda2002@gmail.com of Chief Executive Officer, Lake Development Authority.

Yours faithfully

Encl: Format to fill present status of Lakes & WQ.

Chief Executive Officer
Lake Development Officer

Copy submitted to: The Secretary, Urban Development Department, Vikasa Soudha, 4th Floor, Bangalore for kind information and with a request to direct the D.C.s of all the Districts to furnish the details as the Hon'ble Lok Adalat require such report.


Monday, March 4, 2013

IN THE COURT OF DY. COMMISSIONER & COLLECTOR DISTRICT SOUTH WEST, KAPASHERA, DELHI


Appeal No. 50/11
Kuldeep Singh v/s Gaon Sabha Chhascla & Ors

IN THE COURT OF DY. COMMISSIONER & COLLECTOR
DISTRICT SOUTH WEST, KAPASHERA, DELHI
Kuldeep Singh ... Appellant
Vs.
Gaon Sabha Chhawla & Ors ... Respondents

JUDGEMENT


This shall dispose of the appeal dated 13/04/2011 filed by the appellant here in above u/ s 185 of the DLR Act, 1954 against the order dated 29/03/2010 of the SDM/RA (Najafgarh) under section 81 of the DLR Act, 1954. Vide the said order the SDM/RA has rejected the execution proceedings u/s 86A on the around of limitation. Aggrieved by the said order appellant has preferred an appeal before this court.

In the present matter the appellant is a villager from Village Chhawala and complainant before the SDM. It is the case of the appellant that the ejectment order was passed by Ld. SDM under Section 86 A of the DLR Act. 1954 on dated 08/01/1996. That the Gaon Sabha. Chhawla filed for execution of the same in Case No. 195/2005. Vide order dated 13/02/2007 the BDO was directed to take over the possession of the land. The report dated 21/04/2007 shows that in view of the existing constructions on the suit land same was sealed. However, the Ld. SDM held that the execution ought to be filed within three years as prescribed under section 185 of DLR Act and hence the execution petition was dismissed on dated 29`x' March. 2010. It is argued that the Ld. SDM has not appreciated the fact that the respondent no. 2 to 5 has encroached on the land of the Gaon Sabha. It is therefore prayed to set aside the impugned order dated 29/03/2010.

The case of the respondent is that the appeal is hopelessly barred by time and the appellant has no locus-standi to file the present appeal. That the respondents and ancestors have been in physical possession of above said suit land prior to the commencement of Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 and have constructed the boundary wall of the sarjie in the year 1964-65 and thereafter have constructed their residential house in the year 1975-76. It is submitted that the suit land is the part and parcel of Old Laldora Abadi comprising in Kh. No. 88 and the same is ancestral land of the respondents. That the proceedings under 86-A of the Delhi Land Reforms Act is not maintainable in respect of Old Laldora land. Therefore, it is prayed that the present appeal may be dismissed.

After hearing both the parties and perusing the record it is observed that being the member of the village the appellant automatically becomes the member of the Gaon Sabha as provided under section 151 of the DLR Act, 1954 and as such the present appeal is maintainable as far as question of locus-standi is concerned. Further, it is observed that the contention of the respondent regarding the suit land falling in the Abadi Dell is neither upheld in any of the orders of the lower Court nor it is substantiated through any evidence by the respondent. Also there is no dispute in any of the orders regarding the encroachment on the Gaon Sabha land. Therefore, the contention of abadi deh is misplaced and unacceptable.

Furthermore, during the hearing the counsel of the Gaon Sabha has contended that no limitation period is prescribed in the DLR Act regarding execution of the order issued under section 86A of the said Act. Therefore. the limitation of 12 years as provided under Rule 190 of the CPC shall be applicable. Therefore, the application of execution was not time barred as the RA has wrongly concluded. Further, the appellant has been encroaching upon the Gaon Sabha land since a very long time and very strangely continue to do so even today using various tactics. This is the situation foreseen by the Hon Supreme Court in the judgement passed in Jagpal Singh & Ors Vs. State of Punjab and Ors in Civil Appeal No. 1132/2011 and SLP (c) No. 3109/2011 and therefore emphasized that the encroachers and illegal occupants on the Gram Sabha land needs to be evicted and the Gram Sabha land needs to be retrieved and restored to the Gram Sabha. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the issue of limitation is not maintainable in the instant case. Hence the order:

ORDER

In view of the observations made in the judgement the appeal dated 13/U4/201I filed by the appellant here in above u/s 185 of the DLR Act, 1954 against the order dated 29/03/2010 of the SDM/RA (Najafgarh) under section 81 of the DLR Act, 1954 is allowed. The SDM/RA, Najafgarh is directed to carry out fresh execution proceedings in the instant matter. BDO, South West is directed to take necessary action in time bound manner.

Given under my hand and seal of this court on this 5th day of October 2012.

Vikas Anand, IAS
Dy. Commissioner & Collector

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