SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Maharashtra Rajya Vadar Samaj Sangh Vs. Union of India [24/11/2022]

Tweet

Maharashtra Rajya Vadar Samaj
Sangh Vs. Union of India Ors.

[Writ Petition (Civil) No. 748 of
2016]

M. R. Shah, J.

1. By way of this writ petition under Article
32 of the Constitution of India petitioner has prayed for an appropriate writ
direction and/or order to quash and set aside the Government Resolution dated
12.07.2011 passed by the Revenue and Forest Department, Government of State of
Maharashtra.

2. At the outset it is required to be noted
that considering the directions issued by this Court in the case of Jagpal
Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Punjab and Ors.; (2011) 11 SCC 396, the State of
Maharashtra has issued the impugned Government Resolution dated 12.07.2011
under which a decision is taken that the encroachments or unauthorized
construction on barren land/grassy land and on the common village land may be
removed immediately and proceeding may be started through local Gram Panchayat,
Municipal Council, Nagar Parishad etc., by preparing special program.

It is further resolved that henceforth the barren
land or land utilized for public only may be considered only if
non-availability of other lands for public utility and public purpose run by
the various Departments of Central and State Governments and that the barren
lands/grassy lands or the land under utilization of the villagers shall not be
approved to any person, private institute, organization for any motive/purpose.

2.1 In the case of Jagpal Singh (supra) this
Court issued the directions to protect the barren lands/grassy lands to be
utilized for cattle to be used for public only. This Court directed to all the
State Governments in the country that they should prepare schemes for eviction of
illegal/unauthorized occupants of the Gram Sabha/Gram Panchayat/poramboke/
shamlat land and these must be restored to the Gram Sabha/Gram Panchayat for
the common use of villagers of the village. The Chief Secretaries of all the
State Governments were directed to do the needful. In line with the said
directions the State of Maharashtra has issued the impugned resolution.

3. It is the case on behalf of the petitioner
that the petitioner is established for the welfare of “Vadar” community within
the State of Maharashtra. It is the case on behalf of the petitioner that Vadar
community has been notified as Nomadic Tribe by the State Government and whose
ancestor family profession is stone crushing, removing stone, etc.

That in exercise of powers conferred under
Section 15 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) (MMDR) Act, 1957,
the State of Maharashtra has framed the Rules titled as the Maharashtra Land
Revenue (Extraction and Removal of Minor Minerals) Rules, 1968 (hereinafter
referred to as the Rules, 1968). As per Rule 4A, family of Vadar community can
remove stone up to 200 brass annually by stone crushing by hand, without
payment of any fee or royalty, however, with the previous permission and
writing of the Collector or Additional Collector as the case may be, from any private
land or un-assessed Government waste land not assigned for special purposes
under Section 22 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966.

3.1 It is the case on behalf of the
petitioner that the family of the Vadar communities were granted lease/permission
for mining which were renewed from time to time. It is the case on behalf of
the petitioner that however, on misreading and/or mis-interpretation of the
decision of this Court in the case of Jagpal Singh (supra) and in view of the
impugned Government Resolution dated 12.07.2011, the family of Vadar community
are not granted any lease and/or the lease are not renewed. Therefore, it is
the case on behalf of the petitioner that the impugned Government Resolution
takes away the right available to the family of the Vadar community conferred
under Rule 4A of the Rules, 1968.

4. Having heard Shri Vijay Kumar, learned
Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Shri Sanjay Kharde,
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent – State and having gone
through and considered the impugned Government Resolution read with Rule 4A of
the Rules, 1968, we are of the opinion that the impugned Government Resolution
cannot be said to be illegal and/or taking away any of the rights conferred
upon the family of the Vadar community conferred under Rule 4A of the Rules,
1968. The impugned Government Resolution dated 12.07.2011 is absolutely in
consonance with the directions issued by this Court in the case of Jagpal Singh
(supra) contained in para 23. Para 23 of the decision in the case of Jagpal
Singh (supra) reads as under: –

“23. Before parting with this case we give directions
to all the State Governments in the country that they should prepare schemes
for eviction of illegal/unauthorised occupants of the Gram Sabha/Gram Panchayat/poramboke/shamlat
land and these must be restored to the Gram Sabha/Gram Panchayat for the common
use of villagers of the village. For this purpose the Chief Secretaries of all
State Governments/Union Territories in India are directed to do the needful,
taking the help of other senior officers of the Governments. The said scheme
should provide for the speedy eviction of such illegal occupant, after giving
him a showcause notice and a brief hearing.

Long duration of such illegal occupation or
huge expenditure in making constructions thereon or political connections must
not be treated as a justification for condoning this illegal act or for
regularising the illegal possession. Regularisation should only be permitted in
exceptional cases e.g. where lease has been granted under some government
notification to landless labourers or members of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled
Tribes, or where there is already a school, dispensary or other public utility on
the land.”

4.1 If the impugned Government Resolution is
seen, it is specifically with respect to the barren lands/grassy lands
belonging to the Gram Sabha/Gram Panchayat and/or the Government’s barren lands
and grassy lands to be used for public utilization and to be used for public
only.

4.2 So far as the reliance placed upon the
Rule 4A of the Rules, 1968 is concerned, on a fair reading of Rule 4A it
provides that the family of Vadar community for the purpose of its traditional
profession of stone crushing by hand can remove stone up to 200 brass annually,
from any private land or un-assessed Government waste not assigned for special
purposes under Section 22 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, without
payment of any fee or royalty, however, with the previous permission and
writing of the Collector or Additional Collector as the case may be.

However, the same shall not be applicable
with respect to the barren lands or the grassy lands, any village lands owned
by the Gram Panchayat/Gram Sabha and/or the Government or any un-utilized
Government land to be used for public utility or the land under utilization of the
villagers. Rule 4A also does not provide for any lease of barren/grassy lands
belonging to the Gram Sabha/Gram Panchayat.

The object and purpose of Rule 4A would be
permitting the family of Vadar community to continue their traditional profession
of stone crushing by hand by extracting the stone up to 200 brass annually
without payment of any fee or royalty. The Rule 4A is not meant for the lease
for commercial use. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the impugned
Government Resolution dated 12.07.2011 cannot be said to be illegal as sought
to be canvassed on behalf of the petitioner.

If any lease is not renewed in individual
case and/or any action is taken against individual and if any person is
aggrieved, he can take recourse to law. By no stretch of imagination, the
impugned Government Resolution which according to us is in consonance with the directions
issued by this Court in the case of Jagpal Singh (supra) cannot be said to be
illegal.

5. In view of the above and for the reasons
stated above subject to observations made hereinabove, the present writ
petition stands dismissed/disposed of.

…………………………………J.
(M. R. SHAH)

…………………………………J.
(M.M. SUNDRESH)

NEW
DELHI,

NOVEMBER
24, 2022.

 Back

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2023 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation