No Acts & Articles mentioned in this case
1
AFR
Reserved on 14.02.2019
Delivered on 24.04.2019
Court No. 58
Case : WRIT C No. 16412 of 2018
Petitioner : Harish Chandra
Respondent : Union of India And 5 Others
Counsel for Petitioner : Ashish Pratap Singh, Jawahar Lal
Pandey
Counsel for Respondent : A.S.G.I.,C.S.C., Satish Kumar Rai
Hon'ble Pankaj Kumar Jaiswal,J.
Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava,J.
(Per : Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava,J.)
1.Heard Sri Jawahar Lal Pandey, learned counsel for the
petitioner, Sri Satish Kumar Rai, learned counsel appearing for
respondent nos.1 to 4 and Sri Nagendra Kumar Pandey, learned
Standing Counsel appearing for respondent nos.5 and 6.
2.By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has
made a prayer for quashing the order dated 15.02.2018 whereby
the representation filed by the petitioner pursuant to a direction
issued by this Court in WritC No.45244 of 2017 (Harish
Chandra Vs. Union of India & 5 Ors.) was considered by a
Committee constituted in terms of an order dated 19.05.2015
passed in PIL No.11539 of 2015 (Ajit Singh Vs. Union of India &
Ors.)
1
decided on 06.07.2017, and the same has been disposed
of. The petitioner has made a further prayer to stop the process
of demarcation of the land of gata no.264(M) area 1910 (0.398
hectares) and gata no.265(M) area 60 (1.897 hectares) totaling
2.295 hectares, and not to interfere in the peaceful possession of
the petitioner on the aforesaid bhumidhari land.
3.Learned counsel appearing for the respondents have drawn
12017 (9) ADJ 251
Neutral Citation No. 2019:AHC:69298DB
2
our notice to the fact that the issue relating to encroachment
over 482 acres of defence land acquired for air firing and
bombing range, Tilpat Range vide notification dated 06.11.1950,
was the subject matter of a public interest litigation, PIL
No.11539 of 2015 filed before this Court. The aforementioned
PIL along with connected writ petitions filed by certain persons
asserting themselves to be purchasers of small pieces of farm
land/plots out of the land in question and seeking to challenge
the acquisition that took place in 1950 were decided by means of
a judgment dated 06.07.2017 by this Court.
4.The factual controversy involved in the present case, as
noticed in the judgment in PIL No.11539 of 2015 and connected
matters, is that in the year 1950, by issuing notifications under
Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
2
, land at
Tilpat, measuring 4294.38 acres was acquired for the Union
Ministry of Defence to develop a Firing and Bombing Range for
the Air Force. The land is situate in two States, namely, Haryana
and Uttar Pradesh. In these petitions, we are concerned with
land measuring 482 acres (for short, 'the land in question')
situate in Village "Nagli Nagla" and "Nagli Sagpur", Pargana
Dadri, District Bulandshahr, now in district Gautam Budh Nagar,
Uttar Pradesh. Out of 482 acres comprising the land in question,
105 acres is situate in Village Nagli Nagla and 377 acres in
Village Nagli Sagpur. The notification under Section 4 read with
Section 17 of the Act was published on 6 November 1950,
whereas the notification under Section 6 was issued on 7
November 1950. Possession was taken over by the Defence
Estates Officer, Agra on 23 November 1950, applying the
urgency clause under Section 17 of the Act and, as stated by the
Defence Estates Officer, the name of the Military Estates Officer
(Air Bombing Range) was also mutated in the revenue record.
2The Act, 1894
3
5.It was also taken note of that before handing over
possession of the land in question to the Military Estates Officer,
Agra Circle, the entire amount towards compensation was
deposited with the Collector, Bulandshahr.
6.Upon certain complaints being received with regard to
encroachments over defence land at Tilpat in the year 2011, a
Committee comprising a team of officers of the Air Force carried
out an inspection on 29.12.2011 and made the following
recommendations:
"In view of the vast encroachment found in the area falling in
Distt. Gautam Budh Nagar (UP), it is imperative that
immediate remedial measures should be adopted to stop and
prevent further encroachment in this area and also to secure
the area falling in Distt. Faridabad (Haryana), which is also
substantially prone to encroachment due to unauthorized
cultivation activities noticed during the visit. The following
measures are recommended:
(i) DEO, Delhi & Agra and the Air Force authorities must
immediately liaise with the offices of DC Bulandshahar,
Gautam Budh Nagar and Faridabad to obtain all the available
revenue records including the mutation details of the
acquired land, across the Yamuna river measuring 482 acres.
In case any erroneous mutation is found in the records,
remedial action should be initiated without further delay by
District Authorities.
(ii) Letters be issued to DC Bulandshahar, Gautam Budh
Nagar and Faridabad to not to permit sale transactions of the
Defence land falling under the jurisdiction of their districts
and copies be endorsed to the Revenue Secretaries of both the
States.
(iii) The balance vacant portion immediately should be
secured through active presence of Air Force personnel.
(vi) As an immediate deterrent measure, boards should be
displayed about ownership of land at prominent points/road
junctions.
(v) Land under unauthorized cultivation must be got vacated
by initiating immediate action through active presence of Air
Force personnel on such sites/cultivated land. Further
attempts to encroach/unauthorisedly cultivate/plotting must
be sternly dealt with.
4
(vi) A joint demarcation should be undertaken by District
Revenue Authorities, Air Force Authorities and concerned
DEO Circles and after completion of joint demarcation of
Defence land, Air Force authorities should get the area
fenced/boundarywalled. However, pending sanction for
fencing/boundarywall, appropriate trench may be dug along
the boundary of Defence land during demarcation
immediately."
7.The facts with regard to the encroachments made on the
defence land were duly noticed by this Court in its order dated
19.05.2015 passed in PIL No.11539 of 2015 and connected
matters, which are as under:
“The material which has been placed on the record, indicates
that valuable land which was acquired for the purposes of the
IAF as far back as in 1950 against the payment of
compensation has been allowed to be frittered away. How
land acquired for an Air Bombing range for the IAF can vanish
into thin area defies explanation and stretches the limits of
credulousness. The revenue authorities of the State have
conveniently taken the stand that maps and records pertaining
to the lands are not available. Until this Court was compelled
to intervene in the present proceedings on the basis of the PIL,
the matter had merely rested in an exchange of
correspondence between the Defence Estates Officer and the
authorities of the State. As a result of this sorry state of affairs,
land which has been acquired for the benefit of the IAF, it
appears, has been permitted to be dealt with by unscrupulous
third parties to the detriment of the defence forces.
Faced with this situation, we are of the view that it would be
necessary to constitute a team which shall monitor the entire
exercise of demarcating the lands, and taking all necessary
precautions to safeguard the interest of the IAF by ensuring
due correction of the revenue records including, where
necessary, by taking steps to challenge the orders of the
revenue authorities which have caused detriment to the
interests of the Air Force. Accordingly, we constitute a team of
the following officers:
(i) A nominee of the Commanding Officer of the Indian Air
Force Station at Hindon, not below the rank of Group
Captain;
(ii) The Defence Estates Officer, Delhi Circle;
(iii) The Director, Survey of India at Lucknow; and
(iv) The Collector and District Magistrate, Gautam Budh
5
Nagar.
We direct that the Chairman of the Board of Revenue of the
State of Uttar Pradesh shall personally monitor the matter and
shall ensure that all necessary cooperation is extended to the
Committee in locating records and maps and making available
all necessary information and material that would be required
by the Committee to pursue and protect the interest of the
Indian Air Force.”
8.Pursuant to the aforementioned directions, a report dated
25.07.2015 was submitted by the Committee constituted by the
Court and the progress of work and course of action were
summarized in the report as under:
"33. In summary, so far, the following has been achieved
(a) Records of some portion, measuring 161.4375 acres (258
60 bigha, 65.33 hectares) of village Nagli Sagpur has been
recovered from Faridabad.
(b) A photocopy of village map of NagliNagla has been
located. This map is scripted entirely in Urdu, and needs
translation for clear assimilation.
(c) Record of 141100 bigha land in the name of Air Bombing
Range has been located; also, the order of SDM Khurja
mutating 1500 bigha od same village (thereby reducing the
land area further to 126100) has been located. Both these
documents were relevant to the filing of application at the
Court of Commissioner, Meerut for annulment of the SDM's
order.
(d) Application for annulment of SDM's order dated
23.09.1971 has been filed at Meerut on 24 Jul 15. The
counsel has provided legal advice that it is correct to file the
appeal in the court of SDM Sadar, Gautam Buddh Nagar, and
not at the court of Commissioner, Meerut. This will now be
done in the forthcoming week.
(e) The revenue maps of nine villages of Haryana that
comprise the Tilpat Air Range have been digitised on CAD,
using the help of Ground Control Points sourced from Survey
of India for correcting the GPS Coordinates during survey.
The composite map by mating these villages is ready. An
analysis of a preacquisition aerial photograph has provided
the corner points of the rangearea, as it would have been
acquired. Comparison of the digitised revenue map and the
analysis of the preacquisition photograph is being done.
34. The following future course of action are planned:
6
(a) Followup of the para 229 (b) action of UP ZA&LR Act
(1950) to annul the order of SDM Khurja dated 23.09.1971.
(b) Once the analysis of preacquisition aerial photograph and
the digital village maps are compared by Survey of India, and
corner points plotted, these would be translated to ground, to
identify corners in the portion of villages NagliNagla and
NagliSagpur.
(c) On the basis of map of acquired land (complete 105 acres)
of village NagliNagla dated 1967, demarcation of the
complete portion to identify the location of the 2610 bigha
that was washedoff in 1964, and the 15100 bigha that has
been mutated to Munni Lal and another in 1971.
(d) Use all available means to demarcate the map of village
Nagli Sagpur as received from Faridabad, and identify it's lay
with respect to the other village lands (Tilpat Air Range).
35. It is suggested that the joint panel of officers works under
the mentorship of the Chairman, Board of Revenue, State of
Uttar Pradesh."
9.An Action Taken Report was also placed on record which
had been prepared after a survey of villages Nagli Sagpur and
Nagli Behrampur, based on the available revenue maps of the
year 2007, was conducted by the Survey of India on 7
9.10.2015. The complete length of the State boundary between
Haryana and Uttar Pradesh, where defence land of the Tilpat Air
Range exists, was demarcated on the basis of the Survey of India
Open Series Map (OSM) (scale 1:50,000, MapSheet Number
OSM H43X7, printed in 2012). The relevant portion of the
aforesaid report dated 13.10.2015 is as under:
“14. Having confirmed the stateboundary and the boundary
between Chak Mangraula and the other villages on its west,
the defence land of Tilpat Air Bombing Range comprising of
482 acres is understood to encompass the entire portion of
NagliSagpur and NaglaBehrampur as they exist today, and a
portion of NagliNagla. The recent demarcation by the Survey
of India has also proven that a certain portion of the estate of
482 acres has already been acceded to Haryana during the
settlement of boundaries by Dixit Award 198384. The
discrepancy in area is yet to be reconciled on ground.
15. The application for restoration of 2610 bigha land of
NagliNagla which was reduced by order of the SDM in 1964,
7
and resumption of 1500 bigha land which was wrongly
mutated in 1971 by order of SDM Khurja are still pending
disposal at the Court of SDM, Gautam Buddh Nagar. Notices
were issued by the SDM, and responses have been received on
09.10.2015.
Conclusion:
16. Progress of the team of officers over the land five months
has been steady and sure. The presence of the team from
Survey of India provided adequate confidence in the other
respondents, regarding the correctness and authenticity of
survey of state and village boundaries undertaken. The
digitisation of village maps by ComputerAided Design (CAD)
along with Geographic Information System (GIS) tools and
superimposing them on topographical sheets has been of
immense value in the reconstructive process/analysis."
10.It is undisputed that during the course of demarcation
proceedings, all parties were given notice and they were present
and nobody raised any dispute in respect of demarcation
undertaken by the committee with the help of the Survey of
India Team.
11.On 28.01.2016, the following directions were issued in the
then pending PIL No.11539 of 2015:
"...At this stage, several private parties have intervened in the
proceedings before the Court and the Court has been
informed that while there may be no objection in regard to
the work of demarcation which has been carried out, the real
claims are in regard to whether the lands in respect of which
the private parties claim some interest, fall within the
demarcated land for the Indian Air Force.
During the course of the hearing, we have had the benefit of
hearing a presentation by Group Captain Ludra on the request
of the learned Additional Solicitor General of India. In our
view, the ends of justice would be met if the same Committee
is directed to furnish copies of the two affidavits containing
the reports, to the learned counsel for the private party
intervenors. The Court has been informed by the Additional
Solicitor General that this has been done. Hence, we permit
the intervenors to file their objections before the Committee
within a period of one month from today. The Committee
shall enquire into the objections and after considering the
objections through a personal hearing, submit its findings
8
before this Court to enable us to pass consequential orders in
these proceedings."
12.Objections were invited by the Committee from all
concerned by publishing notices in daily newspapers published
from the National Capital Region on 10.02.2016 and
18.02.2016, and several persons including the petitioners of the
writ petitions connected with the PIL aforesaid also submitted
their objections/applications. Thereafter the parties were given
due opportunity of hearing on 15.03.2016 and a spot visit to
identify the location of the properties of all applicants who had
provided details of land records, was undertaken jointly along
with the team on 19.03.2016 and the Committee submitted its
report on 28.01.2016 giving details of the applications received
and the findings on each application.
13.The observations made by this Court during the course of
hearing of the PIL and connected matters, in respect of the land
in Village Nagli Nagla, with which we are concerned in the
present case, are as follows:
"A total area of 168 bigha pukhta land was acquired for the
purpose of an Air Force Bombing Range. The affidavit of the
Chairman, Board of Revenue records that, at present, only
1261500 bigha pukhta land is recorded in the name of the
Air Force. On 31 March 1964, an order is stated to have been
passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Khurja, Bulandshahr
directing that an area of 1411000 bigha pukhta be recorded
in the name of Air Force pertaining to Khatauni 137071 fasli.
In pursuance of the order, an area of 1411000 bigha pukhta
has been recorded in place of the original 168 bigha pukhta in
the name of Air Force Bombing Range. A total area of 2610
00 bigha pukhta was reduced during the course of
consolidation operations. How such a vast area of land was
reduced during the course of consolidation operations
requires some explanation. Thereafter, out of Gata No 287, a
further area of 15 bigha pukhta was recorded in the name of
one Munni Lal on the basis of an order dated 23 September
1971 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Khurja,
Bulandshahr, in a proceeding under Section 229B of the U P
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. Hence, at
9
present, only an area of 1261500 is stated to be recorded in
the revenue records in the name of Air Force Bombing Range.
x x x x x
Immediate steps have to be taken in respect of the lands
which have been acquired for the purposes of the IAF in
village Nagli Nagla. These include:
(i) The work of demarcation and of locating and fixing
boundary pillars has to be completed at the earliest possible
date and within a period of two months since the Court has
been informed that coordinates have been sought from the
office of the Director, G&RB, Dehradun;
(ii) IAF authorities and the Defence Estates Officer (Delhi
Circle) must take immediate steps to investigate into the
circumstances in which the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Khurja
Bulandshahr passed orders on 31 March 1964 directing that
an area of 1411000 bigha pukhta be recorded in the name of
the Air Force pertaining to Khatauni 137071 fasli and on 23
September 1971 by which 261000 bigha and 15 bigha out of
the acquired land were reduced from the total holding of the
Air Force. Necessary action would have to be initiated to
pursue the remedies available in law, for safeguarding the
interest of the Air Force and for the correction of revenue
records. The affidavit which has been filed by the Chairman,
Board of Revenue states that the Air Force authorities have
already been directed to take legal recourse before the
Commissioner, Meerut Division; and
(iii) In the event that there are encroachments on the land
which has been acquired, necessary action would have to be
taken in accordance with law for safeguarding the interest of
the Air Force by dealing with encroachments on an
expeditious time frame."
14.The claims raised by the petitioners in the connected writ
petitions were examined at length by this Court, and a synopsis
based on the pleadings and the contentions/arguments advanced
on their behalf, was recorded as follows:
"(i) The process of acquisition of private land for a public
purpose under Section 4 read with Section 17 (1) of the Act
although initiated in 1950, was not taken to its logical
conclusion apart from the fact that a mandatory notice under
Section 9 (1) of the Act was not given nor any compensation
to the owners of the land was paid or physical possession of
the land ever taken from its owners. In this backdrop and in
view of the provisions of Section 24 (2) of the Act, 2013, the
land acquisition proceedings initiated in 1950 under the
10
provisions of the Act, have lapsed.
(ii) The respondents do not have any legal right, title and
authority in law to dispossess the petitioners from their legally
owned land by use of force or without complying with the due
process of law.
(iii) The "handing and taking over certificates" dated
23.11.1950, relied upon by the respondents are not only
fabricated documents but they are not adequate to claim that
the acquisition was complete.
(iv) The petitioners acquired right, title and interest in the
farm lands/plots by virtue of registered sale deeds. The
respondents who claim these lands/plots, cannot do so unless
they challenge the sale deeds and get them set aside.
(v) Reliance was also placed on the affidavit of the Collector,
Gautam Budh Nagar, wherein, according to the petitioners, he
has admitted that there is no land recorded in the name of the
Air Force Bombing Range in the revenue record in village
Nagli Sagpur.
(vi) The land belonging to the petitioners are not a part of the
said acquisition in 1950 nor were those lands/plots ever
acquired in accordance with law. The petitioners purchased
the lands/plots through registered sale deeds with due
diligence, and after carrying out verifications, inquiries and
that they are thus bona fide purchasers and cannot be
dispossessed by the respondent authorities.
(vii) No khasra numbers, insofar as lands purportedly
acquired from village Nagli Sagpur, were mentioned in the
notification and, on this ground alone, the acquisition
deserves to be set aside. It was submitted that even if the case
of acquisition is held to be true and correct, the fact remains
that the acquired land was never put to any active use or was
ever tended to by the Air Force.
(viii) The notifications under Sections 4 and 6 show that
village Nagli Sagpur was situated in the District of
Bulandshahr in 1950, whereas the ARO of District Gautam
Budh Nagar, in his affidavit, has stated that village Nagli
Sagpur was transferred to the State of Uttar Pradesh in 1984
in view of the Dixit Award. So, how was the Collector,
Bulandshahr competent to transfer the said land, when it was
a part of Haryana and not Uttar Pradesh.
(ix) The "handing and taking over certificate", on which heavy
reliance is placed by the Air Force, does not mention the exact
area and khasra number of the land in Nagli Sagpur.
(x) An endeavour was also made to demonstrate, on the basis
of relevant provisions of the Act, that no procedure as
contemplated thereunder was complied with scrupulously and
11
on this ground also, the acquisition deserves to be set aside.
(xi) The petitioners are registered legal owners/bhumidhars
in possession and use with transferable rights over the
property in their possession."
15.The facts with regard to the manipulation and fabrication
of entries in course of preparation of the revenue records of the
villages in question were duly taken note by this Court in its
order dated 06.07.2017 in the PIL and in the connected matters,
in the following terms:
“22. From the material that has come on record, the
pleadings, contentions urged on behalf of both the sides,
different reports submitted by the revenue authorities, as also
of the Committee constituted by this Court vide order dated
19 May 2015, it is clear that large scale manipulation and
fabrication of entries in the course of preparation of the
record of villages Nagli Sagpur and Nagli Nagla appears to
have taken place. It also appears that the maps of the villages
were also fabricated by the revenue officials. Original maps
are not available in respect to village Nagli Nagla, which had
been acquired for the benefit of the defence authorities. It is
clear from the reports, which have been prepared by the
Committee as well as the revenue officials, that the land has
been illegally dealt with, encroached and trespassed upon,
and the revenue authorities of the State, in respect of most of
the land, have taken the stand that maps and records
pertaining to the land in question are not available. Moreover,
the Air Force/Defence Estates Officer, permitted or
conveniently allowed land grabbers to encroach/trespass
upon the land in question to the detriment of the defence
forces. Unfortunately, after the acquisition was complete in
1950 itself and the possession was taken by the Air Force after
payment of compensation, a complete apathy was shown by
them towards protection of the land in question, which gave
ample scope not only to land grabbers/unscrupulous elements
of society but even the revenue officials to manipulate and
fabricate entries while preparing the record of these villages.
22.1 That, however, by itself, it was submitted on behalf of
the Air Force/Defence Estates Officer, is not sufficient to oust
the Air Force/defence authorities from the land in question
and confer title upon encroachers/trespassers, even if it is
assumed that they are all bona fide purchasers of the land. It
is the submission of the learned ASG that their remedy is
against their vendors. Even the Air Force/Defence Estates
Officer are not aware as to when the act of land grabbing or
12
encroachment of the acquired land of the defence had initially
taken place, nor have the petitioners brought anything on
record to show that who was/were the original owners of the
farm land purchased by them and how they acquired title
over the said property. Even in the case of Nagli Nagla, where
the land has been purchased by the petitioner in person, in
the leading writ petition (WritC No 41653 of 2015), it is not
clear who was the original owner of the khasra in which he
acquired the farm land. These facts, according to the Air
Force/Defence Estates Officer support their case that all the
petitioners are trespassers/encroachers.
23. It is clear that out of 482 acres of land in the State of
Uttar Pradesh, that was acquired to develop a Firing and
Bombing Range for the Air Force at Tilpat Range, 105 acres of
land is situated in village Nagli Nagla and 377 acres of land is
situated in village Nagli Sagpur. It is true that, in the
notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act, khasra
numbers were not mentioned, insofar as the lands in Nagli
Sagpur are concerned. In view thereof, the contentions urged
by learned ASG assumes importance. It was submitted that
insofar as the lay out of the Air Bombing Range is concerned,
superimposition of the blueprint of the proposed lay out dated
17 January 1950 and the aerial photograph dated 10 January
1950 was done to ascertain the exact location of the acquired
area/land. From the record, it appears that an exercise of
analysing preacquisition aerial photographs and the digital
village maps was undertaken by the Survey of India to
identify the acquired land. Similarly, composition of the
digital revenue map and analysis of the preacquisition
map/photographs done by the Survey of India, further helped
in verifying the exact location of the acquired land on the
map. In short, the blueprint map prepared in 1950
(17.01.1950) of the Air Bombing Range and aerial
photographs taken on 10.01.1950 give a clear picture of the
land in question, so as to pinpoint and identify the exact
location of the acquired area not only in Haryana but also in
Uttar Pradesh. On the basis thereof, it appears that a major
portion of the land in Uttar Pradesh, forming approximately
482 acres in 1950 was in the river Yamuna and, therefore, it
was not likely to be farm land, or owned by any person or
having any khasra numbers. In other words, the land was not
owned by any individuals and, therefore, no names were
appearing in the record of rights in 195051 when the land in
Nagli Sagpur was acquired. Insofar as the land situated in
village Nagli Nagla is concerned, in April 2015, the revenue
office of Gautam Budh Nagar had undertaken demarcation on
the basis of the revenue records showing clear title in favour
13
of the Air Force authorities and describing it as an Air
Bombing Range. This portion forms part of the northern
boundary of the acquired land. Similarly, in case of Nagli
Sagpur, the land situated therein has also been demarcated
and it has been found that the petitioners are in possession of
small pieces/farm lands over which they have developed
farms and constructed farm houses. We also find substance in
the submission made on behalf of Air Force/Defence Estates
Officer, that they would place all these materials in support of
their contentions in the eviction proceedings under the Act,
1971 or in the civil suits filed by the petitioners.”
16.As regards the land situate in Village Nagli Nagla, it was
noticed that in April 2015 the Revenue Office of Gautam Budh
Nagar had undertaken demarcation on the basis of the revenue
records showing a clear title in favour of the airport authorities
and describing it as an air bombing range, and the said portion
formed part of the northern boundary of the acquired land.
17.Further observations made in the judgment in respect of
the land situate in Village Nagli Nagla are as follows:
“24. …Insofar as the land situated in village Nagli Nagla is
concerned, it appears that the lands were owned by
individuals and the proceedings of acquisition were initiated
against them, which came to be concluded by the passing of
an award and, as stated on affidavit, even compensation was
paid to the landowners. We also find force in the submission
of learned ASG, in respect of the land in village Nagli Nagla,
that if the claim of the petitioners was correct, then the
landowners would not have kept quite for decades and they
would have certainly come forward to seek compensation.
Counsel for the petitioners could not and did not place any
materials on record to show as to who were the owners of
land situated in village Nagli Nagla and Nagli Sagpur in 1950
51. It is also not in dispute that at no point of time, though
those lands, according to the petitioners of village Nagli
Nagla, were in possession of tenure holders, none of them
ever approached either the concerned authorities or any court
for either challenging the acquisition or seeking compensation
of the acquired lands. This supports the contention urged on
behalf of the Air Force/Defence Estates Officer, that the
acquisition was complete in all respects, and therefore, none
of the landowners made any grievance about it at any point of
time.”
14
18.It was also noted that no details had been disclosed or
brought on record by the petitioners that the land had not been
acquired in the year 1950 in accordance with law, and,
therefore, the air force could not claim the said land. The Court
also recorded that the petitioners had not been able to show the
source of the title and that it would not be possible to accept that
they were legal owners of the land in the light of the material
which was brought on record. On the other hand it was noticed
that the notification and the declaration under Sections 4 and 6
of the Act, 1894 had come on record so as to show that the
award had been passed, possession was taken and compensation
had been paid, in so far as the Village Nagli Nagla was
concerned. Accordingly, it was held that the petitioners were
trespassers/encroachers and the writ petition at their behest was
not maintainable. It was also noted that merely because there
were certain sale deeds in favour of the petitioners the same did
not mean that they had become owners. If the original source of
title itself was defective the documents such as the notifications
under Section 4 and the declaration under Section 6 and the
possession certificates could not be overlooked and they clearly
supported the allegation of the encroachment/trespass.
19.As regards the assertion in respect of possession made by
the petitioners in the writ petitions which were decided with the
PIL, this Court made the following observations:
“26.1. ...Petitioners have not placed any material to show who
were the original owners, and on what basis they state that
possession was not taken from the original owners and the
compensation was not paid. It is clear from the facts and the
material placed on the record that the acquisition was
complete in 1950 itself. Not only were all stages under the
provisions of the Act complied with but even the possession
was taken by the Defence Estates Officer/Air Force and none
of the original owners ever made any grievance in respect
thereof till today. Petitioners, except for the bald averments
made in the writ petition, have not brought any material on
15
record to show that the acquisition was either not complete or
compensation not paid and possession not taken. That apart,
none of the original owners have come forward making such a
grievance. The petitioners, who are purchasers of the land in
their possession between 2009 and 2013, decades subsequent
to the notification under Section 4 and declaration under
Section 6 of the Act, without bringing any material on record
to show as to how their vendors acquired right, title and
interest, have relied upon this judgment. The principles/ratio
laid down by the Supreme Court thus is of no avail to
trespassers/encroachers and/or the purchasers of the land
subsequent to the notification under Sections 4 and 6 of the
Act...
x x x x x
27.2 In the present case, the petitioners came into possession
over the farm lands between 2007 and 2013, whereas the
acquisition notifications were issued in 1950. This itself shows
that the possession of the petitioners is as encroachers and an
encroacher cannot have any right, title and interest over the
encroached property. However, during the continuance of
possession over the property, an encroacher may have
obtained the record from the revenue authorities showing his
possession but that possession would not entitle him to claim
ownership. We are making such an observation in view of the
fact that the petitioners have admittedly purchased these
lands 60 years after the acquisition stood completed and they
thus could not have acquired any right, title or interest on the
basis of their possession and the sale deeds executed in their
favour. The petitioners have further failed to bring any
material on record to even prima facie show that the
petitioners' vendors had title over the property.
x x x x x
27.4 In B Saraswathi & 8 Ors Vs Tahsildar Poonamallee Taluk,
Thiruvalur District, 1998 WLR 181, the petitioners therein
admitted that they were in possession of Government land
and that they did not claim that they came into possession on
the basis of consent by the Government. They were thus
treated as rank trespassers a factual position which was
evident from their own admission. Even though they claimed
to be in possession for the last more than 20 years, their legal
status was held to be only as trespassers. The learned Judge
held that after entering into another man's land, in this case
Government land, the trespassers themselves claim writ
jurisdiction and claim equity in their favour though they have
no legal right and declined to grant relief to the petitioners
following the judgment of the Calcutta High Court. The
16
learned Judge followed the decision of the Supreme Court in
A P Christian Medical Educational Society Vs Government of
Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1986 SC 1490 and Chief Secretary & Ors
Vs Mathai Kuriya Kose & Ors, AIR 1989 Ker 113 in refusing the
relief of mandamus at the hands of trespassers.
27.5 From a perusal of the judgment of the Supreme Court, it
is clear that a trespasser or encroacher is a person who enters
or remains upon land in the possession of another, without a
privilege to do so being created or conferred by the possessor's
consent or otherwise. Thus, every unlawful entry by one
person on land in possession of another is trespass for which
an action lies. In the present case, the petitioners have taken
advantage of the extent of land, the purpose of acquisition,
attitude of the Air Force or apathy shown by them to protect
the land, frequency of the use of land having regard to the
purpose of acquisition, and the attitude of the local revenue
officials. All this made it convenient for them to enter and
remain upon the land in possession of the Air Force, may be
on the basis of sale deeds executed by persons who did not
have any right, title or interest. Merely because one enters the
land, after execution of a sale deed, does not mean that he
acquires a valid title to the property...”
20.The claims of the petitioners in the writ petitions
connected with the PIL on the basis of certain sale deeds and
entries in revenue records were repelled by this Court in the
following terms:
“32. We would also like to consider the contention urged on
behalf of the petitioners that the revenue record supports
their claim of ownership/title. It is well settled that a revenue
record is not a document of title. It merely raises a
presumption in regard to possession. Presumption of
possession and/or continuity thereof both forward and
backward can also be raised under Section 110 of the
Evidence Act. (See Gurunath Manohar Pavaskar & Ors Vs
Nagesh Siddappa Navalgund & Ors, AIR 2008 SC 901). In the
instant writ petitions, the question of acting on such a
presumption does not arise in view of the peculiar facts and
circumstances of the case and in view of the findings on
questions of fact recorded so far which clearly show that large
scale manipulation and fabrication of entries in preparation of
record of rights of both the villages had taken place and that
too in collusion with the revenue officials. It is also well
settled that possession may prima facie raise a presumption of
title. No one can deny this but a presumption can hardly arise
17
when the facts are known. When the facts disclose no title in
either party, possession alone decides. (See Nair Service
Society Ltd Vs K C Alexander & Ors, AIR 1968 SC 1165).
Reliance placed on Section 110 of the Evidence Act is
misplaced because the petitioners, in the facts and
circumstances of the case, as noticed so far, cannot claim title
to the property in dispute. Presumption under Section 110 of
the Evidence Act, which is rebuttable, is attracted when the
possession is prima facie lawful and when the contesting
party has no title. (See Chief Conservator of Forests, Govt of A P
Vs Collector & Ors, AIR 2003 SC 1805). Thus, in the present
case, prima facie, it cannot be stated that the petitioners have
title in the property in their possession. We may also usefully
refer to the legal maxims : Nemo dat quid non habet (no one
gives what he has not got); and nemo plus juris tribuit quam
ipse habet (no one can bestow or grant a greater right, or a
better title than he has himself).
32.1 Having noticed the legal status of the petitioners in the
backdrop of the judgments referred to in the earlier
paragraphs and the facts which stand established on the
record, we proceed to consider the issue whether the
petitioners can claim any relief or title for that matter only on
the basis of the fact that they came to hold and possess the
land on the basis of sale deeds which were duly registered.
This question is no more res integra and has been answered in
several judgments of the Supreme Court. It is well settled that
mere registration of a document does not confer title on the
vendee/alienee. In other words, registration of a document
per se does not create any new title and the same is governed
by the principles enunciated by the maxim Nemo Dat Quad
Non Habet, i.e. no person can transfer a better title than what
he possesses in the property so transferred. Mere registration
of a conveyance deed cannot come in the way of the
government in asserting its right, and title to the land, and
claim the property back, in accordance with law. [See Full
Bench judgment of the High Court at Hyderabad authored by
one of us, Dilip B Bhosale, CJ, in Vinjamuri Rajagopala Chary &
Ors Vs Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Hyderabad &
Ors, 2016 (2) ALD 236]. In this connection, we may also refer
to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Government of
Andhra Pradesh Vs Thummala Krishna Rao, (1982) 3 SCR 500.
In this case, while dealing with the Andhra Pradesh Land
Encroachment Act, 1945, the Supreme Court has laid down
that the summary remedy for eviction provided by Section 6
of the said Act could be resorted to by the Government only
against persons who are in unauthorised occupation of any
land which is the property of the Government and if the
18
person in occupation has a bona fide claim to litigate he could
not be ejected save by the due process of law and that the
summary remedy prescribed by Section 6 was not that kind of
a legal process.
33. Based on these principles of law, in our opinion, the
petitioners have absolutely no right to seek any benefit under
the provisions of the Act or to challenge the acquisition on the
ground that the procedure as contemplated under the Act was
not followed or complied with. In these proceedings,
petitioners cannot claim any right, title and interest in the
property in their possession. The petitioners are
encroachers/trespassers and that being so, they cannot be
treated as "persons interested" in the property in dispute. If
the right of a trespasser in such a situation is either accepted
or recognized, then no proceedings under the provisions of
the Act would ever get concluded. As observed earlier, none
of the petitioners has produced any document to substantiate
their plea that they have right, title and interest in the
property. In other words, they have not produced any
document on record to show that they are the purchasers of
the properties in their possession from the original land
owners who did not either receive compensation or had not
lost possession after the acquisition was complete in 195051
itself or from the legal owners of the properties as they
existed at the time of issuance of the acquisition notifications.
None of the original land owners, as observed earlier, has
come forward, claiming either compensation or challenging
the acquisition that was initiated and completed in 195051.”
21.It was also taken note of that once the acquisition
proceedings had been completed and the land had vested
absolutely in the Government free from all encumbrances, the
consequence thereof was that the right, title and interest in the
land stood extinguished and all such rights had vested in the
State Government free from all encumbrances. Consequently, the
petitioners in the writ petitions connected with the PIL who had
been held to be trespassers/encroachers, were held to have no
right or title in the land.
22.The final order dated 06.07.2017 made in PIL No.11539 of
2015 and connected matters and the directions issued in terms
of the said order are as follows:
19
“40. In the result, Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No 11539 of
2015 is allowed in terms of this judgment, WritC No 13666
of 2016 is disposed of as rendered infructuous, and the
connected writ petitions, except WritC No 7067 of 2017, are
dismissed. WritC No 7067 of 2017 is allowed insofar as
petitioner nos 1 and 4 are concerned and is dismissed insofar
as the remaining petitioners are concerned.
41. While parting, we issue the following directions:
(i) The Committee that has been constituted vide order dated
19 May 2015 (for short, "the Committee") shall continue to
monitor the proceedings already instituted and that would be
instituted in respect of the land in question before all forums
and shall take all steps and/or to issue appropriate directions
to the officials, who are in charge of any such litigation, that
are necessary to ensure that litigation that may ensue is
neither neglected nor remains uncontested, or suffers for want
of proper attention.
(ii) The Committee shall also take steps for immediate
correction of land records; preparation of village maps; and, if
they find it necessary, initiating appropriate disciplinary as
well as penal action under the criminal law against errant
officials of the State Government as well as Defence/Air Force
officers and any other person for that matter.
(iii) The Chairman of the Board of Revenue of the State of
Uttar Pradesh shall personally monitor the matter and shall
ensure that all necessary cooperation is extended to the
Committee in locating records and maps and making available
all necessary information and material that would be required
to pursue and protect the interest of the Indian Air Force.
(iv) In order to facilitate the work which is being carried out
by the Committee, the Commanding Officer of the Air Force
Station and/or the Defence Estates Officer shall coordinate
with the Chairman of the Board of Revenue. We hope and
trust that both the authorities shall work in close
coordination, so that necessary directions can be issued to the
concerned officials to facilitate the work of the Committee and
to ensure that all necessary steps are taken for protecting the
interest of the Indian Air Force/Union Government in the
acquired land.
(v) The Committee shall also issue appropriate directions
from time to time to all concerned for getting back the
possession of the encroached portion of the land, out of the
acquired land, from the encroachers/trespassers/petitioners
by following due process of law.
(vi) The Collector and District Magistrate, Gautam Budh
20
Nagar is directed to see that every requisition made by the
Defence Estates Officer or any other officer of the Defence/Air
Force, if any, or made by the Committee is immediately
complied with.
(vii) It is open to the Committee to launch criminal
prosecution, whenever and wherever they find it necessary,
not only against the errant officers but even the encroachers,
if they so desire and are so advised.”
23.Pursuant to the directions issued in terms of the
aforementioned order dated 06.07.2017, the representation of
the petitioner was examined by the Committee constituted in
terms of the order dated 19.05.2015 passed in the PIL aforesaid
and upon considering the facts and the material on record it was
disposed of on 15.02.2018 by observing that the land bearing
gata no.264M, area 0.398 hectares and gata no.265M, area
1.897 hectares i.e. total 2.259 hectares wherein the petitioner
claimed to be recorded as bhumidhar of transferable rights, was
in fact part of the land which had been acquired for the air
bombing range, and the petitioner was in illegal occupation over
the same. In this regard the Committee also took note of its
earlier report dated 26.03.2016 wherein also the petitioner's
objections had been considered in the following terms:
“The applicant's title to plot measuring 0.328 hectares lies
within the portion of 126100 bigha of village Nagli Nagla
demarcated by the revenue department in April 2015.”
24.The principal grounds raised by the petitioner to challenge
the aforementioned disposal of his representations on
15.02.2018 are that he is recorded bhumidhar in respect of the
land in question, and that the said land was not included in the
acquisition proceedings initiated terms of notification issued in
the year 1950, and that he has regularly paid land revenue in
respect of the said plots and accordingly the order dated
15.02.2018 is illegal.
21
25.Learned counsel appearing for respondent nos.1 to 4 places
reliance upon a short counter affidavit filed by the said
respondents to submit that the Committee constituted pursuant
to the directions of this Court vide order dated 19.05.2015
passed in the public interest litigation and connected matters
initiated proceedings to remove the encroachments of
encroachers from the identified land of 126100 bigha of Village
Nagli Nagla as per demarcation carried out and submitted before
this Court in PIL No.11539 of 2015.
26.In the aforesaid affidavit, referring to the report of the
Committee it has been stated as follows:
“(a) The applicant has provided details of ownership of land
measuring 0.328 hectares in Khasra No. 264(M) and 2.295
Hectares in Khasra No. 265 (M) in Nagli Nagla.
(b) The applicant was not present to argue /present his
objections.
(c) The committee remarked that “The applicant's title to plot
measuring 0.328 hectarers lie within the portion of 126100
bigha of Village Nagli Nagla demarcated by Revenue
Department in April 2015.”
27.It is further submitted that pursuant to the directions
issued by this Court in WritC No.45224 of 2017 decided on
21.09.2017 and also the directions of this Court issued vide
order dated 19.05.2015 in PIL No.11539 of 2015, the
representation of the petitioner was duly considered by the
Committee on 15.02.2018, and opportunity of personal hearing
was given to the petitioner and his sons who were present and
after due consideration of the facts and the material on record
the order has been passed by the Committee. It is also submitted
that a perusal of the documents submitted by the petitioners
revealed variation in the area of land between the two
representations filed by the petitioner. The difference between
the two representations as enumerated in the affidavit of
22
respondent nos.1 to 4 are as follows:
“1. In the year 2016, the petitioner had claimed land
measuring 0.328 hectares in Khasra No.264(M) and 2.295
hectares in Khasra No.265(M) in Nagli Nagla in
representation dated 21 November 2017, they have claimed
0.398 hectares in Khasra No.264(M) and 1.897 hectares in
Khasra No.265(M).
2. During personal hearing held on 15 February 2018 in the
Office of Gautam Budh Nagar, the petitioner's three sons
present could not provide any details/clarify with respect to
difference in their representation when asked.”
28.It was also submitted that despite adequate opportunity,
the petitioner failed to provide any substantive material evidence
suggesting title of ownership in respect of 0.328 hectares of land
in question before the Committee, and as such the order dated
15.02.2018 in terms of which he has been held to be an
unauthorized occupant of the land measuring 0.328 hectares
lying within the portion of the 126100 bigha of the Village
Nagli Nagla demarcated by the Officer of the Revenue
Department in the month of April, 2015, suffered from no
illegality.
29.Respondent nos.1 to 4 have also placed reliance upon an
affidavit dated 07.02.2019 filed by the said respondents wherein
reference has been made to a report dated 24.04.2015 submitted
on behalf of the State Government after demarcation
proceedings conducted by a joint revenue team, and comparative
tables of the old and new khasra numbers as provided by
Assistant Revenue Officer, Gautam Budh Nagar vide letter
no.692/l/v/v dated 04.08.2015 have been placed on record,
and on the basis of the same it has been submitted that the land
bearing gata no.264(M) measuring area 100 bigha is part of
khasra no.246, which in turn was notified for acquisition in
terms of land acquisition notification dated 05.11.1950 issued
under Section 4 of of the Act, 1894 and also the declaration
23
dated 07.11.1950 issued under Section 6, and as such the same
forms part of the air bombing range.
30.On the aforementioned basis the respondents have
submitted that the petitioner is in illegal occupation over an area
of 100 bigha of air force under khasra no.264(M). The
comparative tables which have been placed on record as part of
the affidavit are as follows:
At the time of AcquisitionAfter Change of Record
Sl.
No.
Old
Khasra
No.
Land
Measurement
(Bigha)
New Khasra
No.
Land
Management
(Bigha)
1 232 600 248 5000
2 246 4200 264 100
3 247 1100 266 3000
4 248 700 287 1500
5 249 3000 288 600
6 250 5000 290 1300
7 251 100 291 600
8 270 1500 292 2000
9 271 600
Total 168100 Total 141100
New Khasra numbers with reduced land holdings
Sl. Nos. Khasra No. Land Measurement (Bigha)
1 248 5000
2 264M 100
3 266M 3000
4 288M 600
5 290 1300
6 291M 600
7 292M 2000
Total 126100
30.Learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent nos.5
and 6 has placed reliance upon the counter affidavit dated
22.11.2018 and also upon a report dated 24.04.2015 of the joint
24
revenue team constituted in terms of the directions in PIL
No.11539 of 2015 to assert that the land over which the
petitioner claimed possession being an area of 100 pukhta
bigha of gata no.264(M) comes within the acquired area for the
air bombing range.
31.From the material on record it is evident that the
representation of the petitioners was duly examined by the
Committee constituted vide order dated 19.05.2015 and it has
been held that the land bearing gata no.364M area 0.398
hectares and gata no. 365M area 1.897 hectares i.e. total area
2.259 hectares, over which the petitioner claims to be recorded
as bhumidhar with transferable rights was in fact part of the land
which had been acquired for the air bombing range and the
petitioner was in illegal occupation thereof. It was further held
that the petitioner's claim to title is in respect of the plot
measuring 0.328 hectares which lies within the portion of 126
100 bigha of Village Nagli Nagla demarcated by the Revenue
Department in April 2015. The representation of the petitioner
having been duly considered by the Committee on 15.02.2018
after providing opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner
and his sons who were present, and after perusing the material
on record, the order passed by the Committee cannot be faulted
with.
32.Furthermore, the records clearly indicate that despite
adequate opportunity the petitioner failed to provide any
substantial material evidence suggesting title of ownership in
respect of 0.328 hectares of land in question before the
Committee and, therefore, the order dated 15.02.2018 in terms
of which he has been held to be unauthorized occupant of the
land measuring 0.328 hectares lying within the portion of 126
100 bigha in Village Nagli Nagla demarcated by the Revenue
25
Department in April 2015 did not suffer from any illegality.
33.The report dated 24.04.2015 submitted on behalf of the
State Government after demarcation proceedings conducted by a
joint revenue team and comparative tables of the old and new
khasra numbers as provided by the Revenue Authorities also go
to show that the land bearing gata no.264M was part of khasra
no.246, which in turn was notified for acquisition in terms of
land acquisition notification dated 05.11.1950 issued under
Section 4 of the Act, 1894 and also the declaration dated
07.11.1950 issued under Section 6, and as such the same
undisputedly forms part of the air bombing range.
34.In this view of the matter also the claim of the petitioner
that the land in question was not included in the acquisition
proceedings initiated in terms of the notifications issued in the
year 1950, cannot be accepted.
35.As regards the assertion made by the petitioner that he is
the recorded tenure holder in respect of the land in question and
that he has regularly paid land revenue, the said contention is
liable to be rejected for the reason that entries in the revenue
records only raise a certain presumption with regard to
possession, and in view of the facts and circumstances of the
present case, in particular the findings on the questions of facts
recorded at various stages of the litigation which clearly go to
show that large scale manipulation and fabrication of entries in
the course of preparation of the record of rights of the village in
question had been made in collusion with the revenue officials,
the question of acting on such a presumption would not arise.
36.This Court may also take into consideration that it is
settled law that the revenue records do not confer title and even
if the entries in the revenue record of rights carry value that by
26
itself would not confer any title upon the person claiming on the
basis of the same.
37.The Supreme Court in Guru Amarjit Singh Vs. Rattan
Chand & Ors.
3
held that entry in Jamabandi (revenue records)
are not proof of title, and it was stated as follows:
“2. ...It is settled law that entries in the Jamabandi are not proof
of title. They are only statements for revenue purpose. It is for the
parties to establish the relationship or title to the property unless
there is unequivocal admission...”
38.A similar position was reiterated in Jattu Ram Vs. Hakam
Singh
4
, and it was held as follows:
“3. ...The sole entry on which the appellate court placed implicit
reliance is by the Patwari in Jamabandi. It is settled law that the
Jamabandi entries are only for fiscal purpose and they create no
title. It is not the case that the appellant had any knowledge and
acquiesced to it. Therefore, it is a classic instance of fabrication of
false entries made by the Patwari, contrary to the contract made
by the parties, though oral...”
39.In Faqruddin Vs. Tajuddin
5
it was held that the revenue
authorities cannot decide questions of title and that mutation
takes place only for certain purposes. The observations made by
the Supreme Court in the said order are as follows:
“45. Revenue authorities of the State are concerned with revenue.
Mutation takes place only for certain purposes. The statutory
rules must be held to be operating in a limited sense... It is well
settled that an entry in the revenue records is not a document of
title. Revenue authorities cannot decide a question of title.”
40.A similar observation was made in Narain Prasad
Aggarwal Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
6
wherein in was held as
follows:
“19. Recordofright is not a document of title. Entries made
therein in terms of Section 35 of the Evidence Act although are
admissible as a relevant piece of evidence and although the same
may also carry a presumption of correctness, but it is beyond any
doubt or dispute that such a presumption is rebuttable...”
3(1993) 4 SCC 349
4(1993) 4 SCC 403
5(2008) 8 SCC 12
6(2007) 11 SCC 736
27
41.In Ramesh Dutt & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors.
7
the
legal position with regard to the entry in revenue record of rights
merely being an evidence of possession and not conferring any
title was reiterated in the following terms:
“15. ...It is now a wellsettled principle of law that entry in a
revenue recordofrights merely is an evidence of possession. (See
Faqruddin v. Tajuddin [(2008) 8 SCC 12]. Such an entry does
not create title; absence thereof does not extinguish the same...”
42.In Union of India & Ors. Vs. Vasavi Cooperative Housing
Society Limited & Ors.
8
the same legal position has again been
stated in the following terms:
“21. This Court in several judgments has held that the revenue
records do not confer title. In Corpn. of the City of Bangalore v.
M. Papaiah [(1989) 3 SCC 612] this Court held that: (SCC p.
615, para 5)
“5. … It is firmly established that the revenue records are
not documents of title, and the question of interpretation of
a document not being a document of title is not a question
of law.”
In Guru Amarjit Singh v. Rattan Chand [(1993) 4 SCC 349] this
Court has held that: (SCC p. 352, para 2)
“2. … that entries in the Jamabandi are not proof of title.”
In State of H.P. v. Keshav Ram [(1996) 11 SCC 257] this Court
held that: (SCC p. 259, para 5)
“5. … an entry in the revenue papers by no stretch of
imagination can form the basis for declaration of title in
favour of the plaintiffs.”
43.We may also refer to the judgment in Suraj Bhan Vs.
Financial Commissioner & Ors.
9
wherein it was held as under:
“9. ...It is well settled that an entry in revenue records does not
confer title on a person whose name appears in recordofrights. It
is settled law that entries in the revenue records or jamabandi
have only “fiscal purpose” i.e. payment of land revenue, and no
ownership is conferred on the basis of such entries...”
44.The malaise of encroachment over Government land was
noted with concern in the case of Mandal Revenue
7(2009) 15 SCC 429
8(2014) 2 SCC 269
9(2007) 6 SCC 186
28
Officer Vs. Goundla Venkaiah & Anr.
10
, and it was observed as
follows:
“47. In this context, it is necessary to remember that it is well
nigh impossible for the State and its instrumentalities including
the local authorities to keep everyday vigilance/watch over vast
tracts of open land owned by them or of which they are the public
trustees. No amount of vigil can stop encroachments and
unauthorised occupation of public land by unscrupulous elements,
who act like vultures to grab such land, raise illegal constructions
and, at times, succeeded in manipulating the State apparatus for
getting their occupation/possession and construction
regularised...”
45.We may take notice of the fact that this Court in its
judgment dated 19.05.2015 passed in PIL No.11539 of 2015 and
the connected matters, in respect of persons claiming similar
rights as the petitioner herein, had clearly held them to be
trespassers/encroachers over the land in question.
46.This Court may take note of the fact that even in respect of
petitioners claiming relief by asserting their title on the basis of
sale deeds which had been duly registered, in the writ petitions
which were decided along with PIL No.11539 of 2015, it was
held that mere registration of a document per se does not create
any new title and the same is governed by the principles
enunciated by the maxim nemo dat quod non habet, i.e. no
person can transfer a better title than what he possesses in the
property so transferred. Mere registration of a conveyance deed
cannot come in the way of the government in asserting its right,
and title to the land, and claim the property back, in accordance
with law. In view of the aforesaid, the petitioners therein having
not been able to demonstrate any right, title or interest in the
property in their possession were held to be
enchroachers/trespassers.
47.In the present case also the petitioner has not been able to
10(2010) 2 SCC 461
29
substantiate his plea on the basis of any document on record
with regard to his right, title or interest in the property. No
material had been placed on record to demonstrate as to how
the petitioner came into possession over land in respect of which
acquisition was completed in terms of notifications issued in the
year 1950. The legal position in this regard has been discussed in
detail in the judgment dated 06.07.2017 passed in PIL No.11539
of 2015 and the connected matters by a Coordinate Division
Bench of this Court and we find no reason to take a different
view.
48.It has been brought to our notice that the appeal, Special
Leave to Appeal (C) No.20654 of 2017 (G.S. Raghav Vs. Union of
India & Ors.) filed against the aforementioned judgment dated
06.07.2017 was dismissed by the Supreme Court vide order
dated 21.08.2017.
49.In view of the aforementioned discussion, we are not
inclined to exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
50.The present writ petition is devoid of merits and is
accordingly dismissed.
Order Date : 24.04.2019
Shahroz
(Dr. Y.K. Srivastava,J.) (Pankaj Kumar Jaiswal,J.)
Legal Notes
Add a Note....