2002 (3) TMI 954 - HC - Indian Laws

Court dismisses review petition, upholds removal of encroachments directive. Society urged to seek remedies if rights jeopardized.

Pujya Sindhi Panchayat Versus C.L. Mishra and Ors.

The court dismissed the review petition, finding no merit in the petitioner-Society's arguments. It emphasized that the original judgment did not ... - Issues Involved:1. Encroachment on public land.2. Responsibility for removal of encroachments between Rajasthan Housing Board and Municipal Corporation.3. Legality of construction on public land.4. Application for impleading a necessary party.5. Review of judgment due to non-consideration of impleading application.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Encroachment on Public Land:The core issue was the alleged illegal encroachment and construction on a plot of land designated for a park by respondents No. 5 and 6. Prof. C.L. Mishra, the original petitioner, claimed that the respondents were constructing a building without any site plan or allotment and were attempting to install idols to cover up their illegal activities. The court treated the letter from Prof. C.L. Mishra as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) and issued notices to the relevant authorities and individuals involved.2. Responsibility for Removal of Encroachments:The court observed that both the Rajasthan Housing Board and the Municipal Corporation were shifting responsibilities regarding the removal of encroachments. The court emphasized that it was immaterial which body was in charge, but it was crucial for the public that the land be saved from encroachments. The court directed the Municipal Corporation to be responsible for removing encroachments from the land handed over to it by the Housing Board and to expedite the formalities of completely handing over the land.3. Legality of Construction on Public Land:The respondents claimed that the land in question had an existing temple and that no new construction was taking place. The Rajasthan Housing Board's inspection report confirmed the existence of a temple and noted that no new construction was found. The Municipal Corporation, however, denied responsibility for the land, stating that it was still under the Housing Board's ownership. The court did not make any observations on the factual situation or the rights of the parties regarding the existence of encroachments.4. Application for Impleading a Necessary Party:The petitioner-Society filed an application under Article 226 of the Constitution read with Order 1, Rule 10 CPC to be impleaded as a party to the writ petition. The Society claimed it was managing the affairs of the public temple on the disputed land and should have been included in the original petition. However, the application was filed after the judgment was reserved and was not considered by the court.5. Review of Judgment Due to Non-Consideration of Impleading Application:The petitioner-Society sought a review of the judgment on the grounds that its application to be impleaded was not considered. The court held that the pendency of such an application, filed after the judgment was reserved, had no effect and did not provide grounds for review. The court further noted that the Society's rights were not adversely affected by the original judgment, which merely directed the Municipal Corporation to remove encroachments in compliance with the law and did not make any adverse findings against the Society.Conclusion:The review petition was dismissed as the court found no merit in the arguments presented by the petitioner-Society. The court emphasized that the original judgment did not affect the rights of the petitioner-Society and that the Society could seek remedies through appropriate legal forums if it felt its rights were at risk. The original judgment directing the Municipal Corporation to remove encroachments in compliance with the law was upheld.