-Report by ESHAN SHARMA
The current appeal has been filed by an encroacher on evacuee land of 0-14 acre-guntha of Survey No.191/2 in Godhara, Gujarat, since 1976, where he has been operating an auto shop known as Bharat Motor Garage. On October 24, 2013, the appellant’s writ suit challenging the eviction order dated 23.6.1992 was dismissed by the Learned Single Bench. The learned Division Bench sustained the order. The appellant, who is still aggrieved, has brought his case to this Court.
PETITIONER’S CONTENTION
On 16.07.1992, the appellant filed a writ suit in the Gujarat High Court in Ahmedabad, bearing Special Civil Application (SCA) No. 4700 of 1992. Along with the SCA filed by the appellant, another SCA No.2940 of 1992 brought by one Srikant Deviprasad Joshi was heard. Shri Joshi claimed ownership of the property in question based on an allocation made to him on September 20, 1972, as enemy property. On December 6, 1974, the land assigned to Shri Joshi was annulled. On July 15, 1975, the appeal against the stated order was denied. Shri Joshi then filed an SCA with the High Court, which was dismissed on October 24, 2013. The said order had finally attained finality qua Shri Joshi.
KEY HIGHLIGHTS
- On January 20, 2014, an order was issued in an intra-court appeal remanding both SCAs to the learned Single Bench. However, the application and the Letters Patent Appeal were both dismissed on March 10, 2014.
- The learned counsel argued for the appellant before this court is founded upon the policy dated 20.6.1978 for allotment of evacuee land to encroachers and the resolution dated 8.1.1980 in respect of allotment of another public land to encroachers. The appellant as an encroacher is covered by one or both of the insurance, therefore, is entitled to claim regularization of his ownership.
- On 24.10.2013, the appellant’s writ suit contesting the eviction order dated 23.6.1992 was dismissed by the Learned Single Bench. The ruling has been sustained by the learned Division Bench. The appellant is back in court, still aggrieved.
RESPONDENT’S CONTENTION
The learned counsel count on the judgments in the cases of:
Ramesh Parsram Malani v. State of Telangana
Based on a government policy decision of 20.06.1978, the displaced person-respondent is claiming allotment. The evacuee land must be given to a displaced person because it is part of the compensation pool under Section 14 of the Act and can only be allotted under Section 20. Only one displaced person can be assigned to the evacuee land. After all of the displaced people have been settled, the allocation to non-displaced people can be considered. As a result, the paragraph in the policy dated 20.6.1978 that allows evacuee land to encroachers is contrary to the Act’s design and purpose. However, any allotment made to an encroacher that has reached finality will not be reopened. As a result, an encroacher has no right to regularize evacuee land in the presence of a displaced person entitled to the allotment to achieve the Act’s goal.
COURT JUDGEMENT
“The possession of the land was taken over by the government on January 24, 2014, according to the report. The appellant’s claim now is for restoration of possession by an encroacher, which is completely untenable in above observations.”
The rule is made an outright and present appeal and the same is dismissed.