2,754 Gujarat Villages have no Grazing Land, Government Admits

TNN | March 21, 2018

Gandhinagar : The BJP-led Gujarat government which makes tall claims about its protection of cows, told the assembly by a written submission that 2,754 villages in Gujarat have no gauchar land (community land for grazing of cows and other animals).

In reply to starred questions by Congress MLAs, the revenue minister stated, “A total of 2,754 villages in the state do not have any gauchar land. The most such villages, 318, are in Chhota Udepur district, followed by Dang (310), Mahisagar (225), Valsad (216), Narmada (206) and Banaskantha (197) districts.

Paresh Dhanani, leader of the opposition, said, “Two and a half years ago the Gujarat government told the assembly that 2,625 villages had no gauchar land. Now it says there are 2,754 such villages, which means 129 villages lost their gauchar land in the last two and a half years. The Gujarat government, makes tall claims about the protection of cows but it has sold gauchar land for its own benefit.”

In a written reply to various Congress MLAs, the state panchayats and rural development minister accepted that 4,725 hectares of gauchar land in 33 districts has been encroached upon. The government also conceded that 57.54 hectares of gauchar land in the Gir sanctuary was encroached upon before 1987-88 and these encroachments have still not been removed.

A January 2011 order of the Supreme Court put strict restrictions on the sale of gauchar land and directed that encroachments on such land be removed.

The Supreme Court order said, “Pastoral land and other community resources belonging to a village shall not be given for industrial or commercial use and should strictly meant for the community’s use”.

The SC had directed all state governments to formulate plans for eviction of illegal/unauthorized occupants of land meant for gram sabhas, gram panchayats and other community use and said that “long duration of such illegal occupation or huge expenditure on constructions thereon or political connections must not be treated as a justification for condoning this illegal act or for regularizing the illegal possession”.

Source : https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/ahmedabad/2754-gujarat-villages-have-no-grazing-land-government-admits/articleshow/63388117.cms

Demarcation of village common land: Panchayat department to re-install Burjis

The Indian Express|March 19, 2018|Mohali

THE RURAL Development and Panchayat department is finding it tough to identify shamlat land (village common land) in the villages as the Burjis (the stones which were installed to demark the land) are missing. The department is now going to find the Burjis and demarcate the shamlat land again. It was one of the reasons for illegal encroachment on government land, said officials.

The financial commissioner of the department Anurag Verma said the Burjis in villages were common properties and the department will use the panchayat funds to find and re-install the Burjis. He said many Burjis were misplaced or damaged due to which the department is finding it tough to identify the village common land in the state. “Many demarcation cases are pending for a long time. After finding these Burjis our department will demark the shamlat land in the villages, it will help us to get the illegal encroachments removed from the village common lands,” Verma added.

Verma further added that the Burjis are included in common properties so the panchayat funds will be used to find and re-install the Burjis . He added that all the deputy directors and district development and panchayat officers has been asked to utilise the funds available with panchayats for re-construction of these Burjis . Verma explained that when the land was demarcated, the government installed the Burjis which classify the village common lands and the private lands.

http://indianexpress.com/article/cities/chandigarh/demarcation-of-village-common-land-panchayat-department-to-re-install-burjis/

Encroachments on 90 Acre Panchayati Land Removed

Tribune News Service|March 11,2018

Mohali: The Rural Development and Panchayat Department, Punjab, claimed to have removed encroachments from 90 acre panchayati land, worth around Rs 90 crore, at Kansala village in New Chandigarh (Mullanpur).

Anurag Verma, Financial Commissioner of the department, said the land was located near Eco City-2 and Omaxe Tower. The land occupants had got a stay from the Punjab and Haryana High Court, but the department’s persistent efforts bore fruit as the High Court had vacated the stay later.

“After vacation of the judgment by the high court, our official got renewed the warrant of possession from DDPO, Mohali and started the process of removal of illegal possession in coordination with revenue and development departments and with the help of local police”, said Verma.

The land was under illegal possession since 2007, he added.

Source : http://www.tribuneindia.com/news/chandigarh/encroachments-on-90-acre-panchayati-land-removed/556584.html

Ram Kumar vs. State of Haryana & Ors. [17.04.2017]

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARINDER SINGH SIDHU 

Present: Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. 

Mr. Ankur Mittal, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana. 

Mr. R. K. Agnihotri, Advocate for respondent No. 3. 

Rajesh Bindal J. 

Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 17.2.2014 (Annexure P-9), passed by respondent No. 2, vide which the request made by the petitioner for allotment of five marlas of land to him, on which he had allegedly constructed a house in the year 1980, was rejected. The petitioner had earlier filed CWP No. 12824 of 2012 challenging the order dated 23.6.2011 rejecting his prayer for purchase of that portion of land. In that petition, while quashing the order, direction was issued for consideration of his claim. Now the claim has been rejected while recording a finding that khasra number, on the part of which the petitioner has allegedly constructed the house is, in fact, village pond as per the revenue record.

The aforesaid fact, as such, is not disputed, however, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that some other residents of the village have also constructed houses on the land recorded as village pond in the 1 of 3 CWP No. 11974 of 2015 [2] revenue record. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Hinch Lal Tiwari v. Kamala Devi and others, (2001) 6 SCC 496; Jagpal Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others, (2011) 3 SCC (Civil) 694 and Meghwal Samaj Shiksha Samiti v. Lakh Singh and others, (2011) 11 SCC 800 and this court following the aforesaid judgments in CWP No. 3221 of 2011 Rajpal and another v. State of Haryana and others, decided on 22.11.2012 deprecated allotment of plots or land, which is recorded as village pond in the revenue record. In Jagpal Singh and others' case (supra), directions were given to all the State Governments to prepare schemes for eviction of illegal/ unathorized occupants of Gram Panchayat/shamlat land and for restoration thereof for common use of villagers. It was observed therein that areas were ear- marked for water bodies in village for use by the cattles and to work as traditional rain water harvesting methods. In case residents of the village are allowed to construct houses thereon, the whole object will be defeated. For the reasons mentioned above, we do not find any merit in the present petition.

 The same is, accordingly, dismissed. 

(Rajesh Bindal) 

Judge 

(Harinder Singh Sidhu) 

Judge 

17.4.2017

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/590703204a9326304e9de431

Move to alienate Bhavani Island to private firm decried

The Hindu|March 05, 2018| Vishakhapatnam

 Social activist and former IAS officer E.A.S. Sarma on Sunday criticised the reported decision of the authorities to alienate Bhavani Island in the Krishna river to a private agency for setting up commercial facilities and described it as ‘imprudent and unacceptable.’

In a letter to Chief Secretary Dinesh Kumar, the former IAS officer pointed out that in the Jagpal Singh vs. State of Punjab (Civil Appeal No.1132 /2011, SLP(C) No.3109/2011, arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) CC No. 19869 of 2010), the apex court had directed all the States including Andhra Pradesh on January 28, 2011 not to alienate ecologically sensitive government lands to private parties.

Mr. Sarma said the Bhavani Islands attracted this direction and, therefore, the State would be violating the apex court order if it alienated the land to any private party

Mr. Sarma said in the 2-G spectrum case, the apex court had prohibited the government from alienating natural resources to private parties through non-transparent procedures that obfuscated their value.

“It appears that the State is contemplating to give away Bhavani Island to a private party without going through a transparent procedure. If it is so, such a step would be a violation of the apex court’s order in that case,” he contended.

In the past, the State tried to alienate Bhavani Island to a private party but it had to refrain from it as there was a case filed before Lok Ayukta.

Apparently, the State had not learnt its lessons, Mr. Sarma remarked.


http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/tp-andhrapradesh/move-to-alienate-bhavani-island-to-private-firm-decried/article22928320.ece

Sarpanch suspended for deposing against panchayat

The Tribune|Feb 21, 2018| Ropar

Deposing in favour of the accused in an encroachment case of panchayat land cost a sarpanch dear when the Rural Development and Panchayat Director issued his suspension orders over the issue.

The orders stated that the actions of sarpanch Harmohan Singh of Rajemajra village were against the interests of the gram panchayat.

A case pertaining to the ownership of shamlat land of Rajemajra village panchayat was pending in the court of District Development and Panchayat Officer (DDPO)-cum-collector (panchayati land) at Ropar and in his orders passed on November 29, 2013, he had decided the case in favour of the panchayat and the latter took possession of the land on May 22, 2014.

Following this, one of the litigants, Baljit Singh, had filed a case against the judgment in the civil court where during the hearing of the case, sarpanch Harmohan Singh got his statement recorded in the court against the interests of the gram panchayat on April 6, 2017.

Former sarpanches Simratpal Singh and Vijay Kumar had submitted a complaint to the Deputy Commissioner against Harmohan Singh in July 2017 and an inquiry was conducted on the complaint by the Block Development and Panchayat Officer (BDPO).

The BDPO in his report recommended action against the sarpanch under Section 20 of the Panchayati Raj Act.

http://www.tribuneindia.com/news/punjab/sarpanch-suspended-for-deposing-against-panchayat/547721.html