The Bombay High Court issued notice on a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that alleged that by the impugned order the former Minister of State for Revenue has done something, which he under no circumstances, ought to have done.
The petition has been filed by an advocate and one other.
The petitioners noticed that by the impugned order dated 17/6/2022, the respondent 2 (Former Minister) regularised public utility land, which was a gairan land admeasuring 37 acres 19 gunthas in favour of private respondent. This has been done after the claim of the private respondent in a civil suit, which culminated in Regular Civil Appeal, was rejected by the Civil Appellate Court.
The Senior Advocate invited the Court’s attention to the findings recorded by the Additional District Judge, Washim in his judgment and order dated 19/4/1994 passed in Regular Civil Appeal in order to support his argument that respondent 2 has disrespected the decree of the Civil Appellate Court, thereby refusing to protect alleged possession of the respondent 7 (private respondent) over public utility land.
Senior Advocate Sunil V. Manohar also submitted that even otherwise, as per directions issued by the Apex Court in the case of Jagpal Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and others (Civil Appeal No.1132/2011 @ SLP (C) No.3109/2011), no public utility land/gairan land can be regularised and allotted to any individual person or private body. He further submitted that based on these directions of the Apex Court, Government Resolution dated 12/7/2011 has been issued whereunder there is a complete prohibition imposed upon transfer of public utility land/gairan land to individuals or private bodies although such transfer has been permitted in favour of the Central Government or Departments of State Governments for implementing schemes or achieving object of public purpose/public utility.
The Nagpur Division Bench of Justice Sunil B. Shukre and Justice M.W. Chandwani held that Senior Advocate for the petitioners has brought to their notice something which has the potential of shaking the public confidence in the system of governance of the State.
The impugned order passed by the respondent no.2 on 17/6/2022, shows, prima facie, that it utterly ignores the Civil Appellate Court’s decree whereby claim of the respondent 7 that he was in continuous possession of gairan land and was also in possession of the land at the time when he filed the civil suit has been found to be false. The Court further, prima facie, found that the impugned order has been passed by not considering in any manner the observations of the learned Additional District Judge, Washim.
The Court further found that prima facie respondent 2 has also not considered the law laid down by the highest Court of the country when it directed that no public utility land/gairan land shall be regularised and allotted to any individual or private body. The Bench is of the view that the impugned order ignores the administrative instructions contained in the Government Resolution dated 12/7/2011.
Further, prima facie, the Bench found that the impugned order has been passed by the respondent 2 with knowledge of the fact that the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction, which was the Court of Additional District Judge, Washim had disallowed the claim of the respondent 7 for continuing possession over gairan land and also had passed stinging remarks against him to the effect that the respondent 7 was “certainly out to usurp the Government land”, which is not less than 37 acres as the Sub-Divisional Officer, Washim as well as Collector, Washim had brought to the notice of the respondent 2 the fact of dismissal of the suit of the respondent 7 seeking injunction against the Government for the purpose of protecting his alleged possession over the suit land, which is the subject matter of this petition.
The Court further noted the Collector, Washim having realised the illegality of the order impugned herein, had written to the Additional Chief Secretary vide his letter dated 5/7/2022 informing him that if the impugned order passed by the respondent 2 was implemented by him, it would lead to contempt of the Supreme Court as well as contempt of the High Court and thus, he sought further directions from the Additional Chief Secretary.
Thus, the Bench found that the issue raised in this petition, which puts a question mark over the manner in which the public utility land/gairan land is allowed to be usurped by private individuals, requires consideration by the Court. While issuing notice, the Court directed the petitioners to deposit in the High Court an amount of Rs 50,000 to show their bona fides.
The matter has been listed on January 11, 2023 for further hearing.