Illegal Encroachment Of Kotputli Road: Rajasthan High Court Quashes Public Notices For Demolition

A division bench of Chief Justice Akil Kureshi and Justice Sudesh Bansal, ordered,

"1. Any of the appellants-original petitioners who may have received the said notice dated 14/15.12.2021 may file objections before the authorities. If no objection is raised, the same be done within a period of 30 days from today. The objection which have already been received or those may be received 30 days thereafter be disposed of by the authorities by a speaking order as desired by the learned Single Judge.

2. Public notice dated 23.12.2021 is quashed."

In the present matter, the writ petition was filed by the 25 individuals, all residents of Kotputli District in Jaipur, being aggrieved by the notices issued to them by the respondent-Nagar Palika, Kotputli dated 14/15.12.2021 as well as 23.12.2021 for removal of encroachments from the road. The respondent had demanded the documents from the petitioners of their lawful title over the disputed land. In the plea, it was averred that even though the petitioners have submitted their objections, the Nagar Palika, however, without considering their reply/ objections is going to demolish their construction.

In this regard, a single bench of the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench had directed the Nagar Palika, Kotputli to decide the objections submitted by 25 petitioners pursuant to the notices issued to them for removal of road encroachment.

Justice Inderjeet Singh had directed the authority to pass reasoned and speaking order within a period of 30 days.

"I deem it just and proper to direct the respondent-Nagar Palika to decide the objections submitted by the petitioners pursuant to the notice issued to them, by reasoned and speaking order within a period 30 days," the order stated.

Aggrieved by this, the appellants-original petitioners filed the present appeal.

Also Read: Demolition of Illegal Encroachment On Kotputli Road: Rajasthan High Court Orders Status Quo; Directs Local Authority to Pass Reasoned Order

The court opined that those petitioners-occupants to whom the notice dated 14/15.12.2021 or such similar notices have been served, must file their replies. If according to them they have not encroached on any part of the private land then it would be open for them to point out the same to the authorities, added the court. The court observed that the public notice dated 23.12.2021 is bad in law and requires all and sundry to withdraw the occupation failing which there would be demolition of structures.

In furtherance, the court observed that this does not make a distinction between a person who has caused encroachment and why he was occupying the premises in unlawful terms. The court noted that the counsel for the Nagar Palika agreed that no proceedings for acquiring such private properties either through private negotiations or compulsory acquisition had been undertaken. The court added that the municipality cannot demolish such structures.

The court observed that it would not have examined these appeals as the impugned order does not take away any of the rights of the appellants-petitioners.

The counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that the Nagar Palika has issued eviction notices to the occupants of the area who are occupying these premises on lawful basis since long and the notice threatens the occupants with demolition if occupation is not withdrawn voluntarily.

In contrast, Mr. Anil Mehta, AAG appearing for the Nagar Palika stated that the Nagar Palika intends to widen the road. He submitted that some of the occupants have caused encroachments and accordingly, notices dated 14/15.12.2021 were issued. He further stated that under a general public notice dated 23.12.2021, the Nagar Palika asked all the occupants within the road land to remove their structures failing which there would be a demolition.

On the issue of subsequent amendment of Rajasthan Municipality Act, 2009 and the insertion of Section 73B therein, the court observed that these are developments which took place after the disposal of the writ petitions and since Section 73B is not under challenge, the course of these appeals would not change on account of these developments. The court further made it open for the appellants to take recourse of appropriate remedy if fresh cause of action arises.

Sr. Adv. Kamlakar Sharma with Adv. Archit Bohra, Adv. Lipi Garg and Adv. Aastha Singhal appeared for the appellants, while Anil Mehta, AAG with Adv. Yashodhar Pandey appeared for the respondents.

Case Title: Prakash Chand Saini v. State Of Rajasthan

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 83