HC: Demolition of Buildings after 20 years is fine but also act against Public Servants who allowed Encroachments, Read Order

 

The Allahabad High Court while approving of State's decision to remove 20-year-old alleged encroachment, has also asked them to ascertain the liability/guilt of officials were lethargic in letting it take place in the first place.

The single-judge bench of Justice Abdul Moin while dealing with a writ seeking quashing of an order passed by Assistant Collector/Tehsildar, Sitapur holding petitioner to be an encroacher, imposing a penalty of Rs.5,40,200/- and initiating recovery proceedings against him.

The impugned order was passed on an appeal filed under Section 67(5) of the Code, 2006, by which the penalty amount has been reduced and it was further being noted that the petitioner had encroached upon the land 20 years earlier.

The Court noted that the said encroachment is said to have been carried out by the petitioner for a period of 20 years by building a boundary wall and a house over the land in dispute. The encroachment was removed by demolishing the wall two years earlier and that presently the land is lying vacant.

It was further being noted that the impugned order itself records that two years earlier (prior to passing of the order) the boundary wall has been removed. However, the same is completely silent as to the building which is said to have been constructed over the aforesaid land more particularly when the fact of a building having been made specifically finds place in the later order.Obviously the alleged encroachment for about 20 years prima facie could not have continued without active connivance of the officials who were responsible for removal of the said encroachment, the Court commented.

"Waking up after 20 years and thereafter proceeding to demolish the alleged encroachment though laudable yet would require the authorities to explain as to which of the officials were in active connivance and did not ensure that Gaon Sabha property is not encroached," the Court said chastisizing the authorities.

In this backdrop, the Court asked the Principal Secretary (Revenue) to enquire into the matter on the aforesaid points including ascertaining the liability/guilt of the officials who were responsible for preventing encroachment over Gaon Sabha land yet encroachment was made and as to the action which is proposed to be taken against such officials after identifying them.

 

Social media is bold.

Social media is young.

Social media raises questions.

 Social media is not satisfied with an answer.

Social media looks at the big picture.

 Social media is interested in every detail.

social media is curious.

 Social media is free.

Social media is irreplaceable.

But never irrelevant.

Social media is you.

(With input from news agency language)

 If you like this story, share it with a friend!  

We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure