HC directs govt to act against encroachers
Issuing a set of guidelines to the govt, the two-judge bench of Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice M S Raman said, "The state shall make an extensive enquiry and/or investigation in relation to an encroachment over govt land by engaging competent authorities including the Amin for relay and survey of the plots belonging to the govt."
The bench stated that upon such exercise, if govt land is found to have been encroached upon, the state shall immediately take steps as permissible under law for eviction, particularly invoking provisions of the Odisha Prevention of Land Encroachment Act, 1972.
"Removal of the encroachments should not exceed beyond three months from the date of the report of the surveyor/Amin or the other competent authority," the bench said while disposing of a PIL recently.
The PIL concerned the alleged thriving of a furniture manufacturing unit, an oil mill and parking area for transport vehicles and tractors over nearly one acre of encroached govt land (forest category) near Belpal under Badasahi tehsil in Mayurbhanj district. In the petition, social activist Kamala Singh alleged that the govt is not taking any steps for their removal. Advocate Pravas Chandra Jena made submissions on the petitioner's behalf.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
5 hours ago
- Time of India
Madras high court summons advocate over remarks against judge
MADURAI: Taking a serious view of a representation sent by a Madurai-based lawyer to the Chief Justice of India against Justice G R Swaminathan of Madras high court , a division bench called the lawyer and said his conduct prima facie constituted contempt of court. On Thursday, a bench of Justice G R Swaminathan and Justice K Rajasekar while hearing an appeal took note of a case wherein Vanchinathan was counsel and observed that since improper motive was being attributed to one of the judges, it became necessary to summon Vanchinathan to appear in person before the court at 1.15pm. In compliance of the summons issued by the registry, Vanchinathan appeared before the court. You Can Also Check: Chennai AQI | Weather in Chennai | Bank Holidays in Chennai | Public Holidays in Chennai When the judges posed a query to Vanchinathan and asked him whether he still stood by the allegations, he replied that he would answer the question if the query is made in writing. The judges directed the registry to serve the questionnaire to Vanchinathan to enable him to respond to a query as to whether he stands by his imputation against Justice Swaminathan in the discharge of his judicial duties. The bench directed Vanchinathan to appear in person before the court at 1.15pm on Monday. The judges also observed that the conduct of Vanchinathan prima facie constituted criminal contempt of court.
NDTV
7 hours ago
- NDTV
Supreme Court Issues Notice To Assam Chief Secretary Over Goalpara Demolition Drive
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday issued notice on a plea seeking contempt action against the Assam Chief Secretary and other officials for allegedly conducting a mass eviction and demolition drive in Goalpara's Hasila Beel in violation of the apex court guidelines. A bench, headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai, sought responses of Chief Secretary Ravi Kota, Principal Secretary, Revenue & Disaster Management Department, Gyanendra Dev Tripathi, Goalpara's District Commissioner Khanindra Choudhury, Goalpara's Superintendent of Police Nabaneet Mahanta, and other officials in the matter. "Issue notice, returnable in two weeks. [P]ersonal presence of the alleged contemnnor(s) is dispensed with, until further orders," ordered the Bench, also comprising Justice K. Vinod Chandran. As per the plea, filed through advocate Adeel Ahmed, no sufficient time or any opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioners and in an "arbitrary and high-handed manner" a notice was issued to remove their houses, structures, shops, buildings and crops within two days. "The houses, crops, properties, belongings, etc. of the petitioners and other similarly situated persons have all been demolished in the eviction and demolition exercise." The petitioners, claiming to be landless, said that their forefathers had to settle in the Hasila Beel revenue village of Balijana Revenue Circle about 50 to 60 years ago after losing their houses and land due to the riverbank erosion of the river Brahmaputra. The plea said that the eviction and demolition exercise was carried out without granting a personal hearing and without providing adequate time for appeal or judicial review, in blatant violation of the guidelines issued in the case titled "In Re: Directions in the matter of demolition of structures". In November last year, a bench of then Justice Gavai and Justice K.V. Viswanathan laid down pan-India directives governing demolitions of unauthorised structures. The top court had cautioned that flouting its directions by state authorities will result in criminal contempt and prosecution. Issuing a slew of directions under Article 142 of the Constitution, the apex court said that no demolition will be carried out without a prior show-cause notice. It added that the demolition order will not be implemented for a period of 15 days and will be displayed on a designated digital portal to be maintained by every municipal and local authority. The Supreme Court had clarified that its directions will not be applicable if there is an unauthorised structure in any public place, such as a road, street, footpath, abutting railway line or any river body or water bodies and also to cases where there is an order for demolition made by a court of law.
Hindustan Times
8 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
Allahabad HC orders status quo on merger of schools in Sitapur till Aug 21
In an important judgment, the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad high court on Thursday ordered to maintain the status quo on the merger of primary schools in Sitapur district and also pointed out that the interim order has nothing to do with the merit of the state government's policy and its implementation. The court has fixed the next hearing of the case on August 21. The high court passed the order only for Sitapur district after it noticed certain glaring discrepancies with respect to merger of schools there during hearing of the case. (For Representation) The high court passed the order only for Sitapur district after it noticed certain glaring discrepancies with respect to merger of schools there during hearing of the case. A division bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Jaspreet Singh passed the order on two petitions—one by 5 children and the other by 17 children from Sitapur district through their parents. The petitioners had sought a stay on the July 7 order of the single judge bench of the high court which dismissed the petitions challenging the state government's June 16 order for merger of primary schools run by the basic education department of the state government. 'We make it clear that at this point of time the grant of interim order has nothing to do with the merit of the policy and its implementation as such,' the court said. Senior advocate LP Mishra and advocate Gaurav Mehrotra argued on behalf of the petitioners, whereas additional advocate general Anuj Kudesia and chief standing counsel Shailendra Kumar Singh argued on behalf of the state government. During the hearing, irregularities came to the fore in some documents of merger presented by the state government. They came to light when reference to the documents produced before the single judge bench (which dismissed the petitions against merger on July 7) was made. The court noticed certain discrepancies and pointed them out to the additional advocate general. In view of this, the court ordered to maintain the status quo on the merger process of primary schools in Sitapur district. Mishra argued that the state government's order to merge schools violates the Right to Free and Compulsory Education Act for children aged 6-14. He also raised concerns that the merger would create problems for young children as they would have to travel long distances to attend school. The government counsel apprised the court of such primary schools those have zero students. They also informed the court about primary schools where the strength of students was fewer than 15. Defending the merger of primary schools, the government counsel pointed out that it was in the larger interest of students. They said there will be more social activity and scope for development for a student who is relocated from a school having a few students to a school having 300 students.
