- Home
- /
- News Updates
- /
- 'Would Unsettle The Settled...
'Would Unsettle The Settled Things': Gujarat High Court Dismisses Plea For Removing Alleged Encroachments On Public Land Citing Inordinate Delay
PRIYANKA PREET
21 Jun 2022 7:14 AM GMT
The Gujarat High Court recently dismissed a PIL filed by a freelance reporter and RTI activist, seeking removal of alleged encroachments on plots reserved for developing public gardens, citing inordinate delay in approaching the Court. The Bench comprising Chief Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Ashutosh Shastri observed that the petition came to be filed 16-19 years after the allotment of...
The Gujarat High Court recently dismissed a PIL filed by a freelance reporter and RTI activist, seeking removal of alleged encroachments on plots reserved for developing public gardens, citing inordinate delay in approaching the Court.
The Bench comprising Chief Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Ashutosh Shastri observed that the petition came to be filed 16-19 years after the allotment of the plots had been made and there was not even a whisper in the petition as to why the petitioner did not raise his "little finger" from 2003 / 2006, particularly when he claims to be an RTI activist, a public spirited person and espousing the cause of the public.
"It is true that there is no specific period of limitation where the High Court may refuse to exercise this extraordinary power. However, if the petitioner is guilty of laches and undue delay for which there is no satisfactory explanation, in such circumstances, the delay and laches cannot be ignored," the Bench said.
The Petitioner had sought the following reliefs:
- Issue directions to State authorities to identify public plots earmarked for public purpose in the City of Ahmedabad.
- Maintain list of such plots and erect notice board on these plots mentioning the purpose for which they are reserved.
- Remove encroachment on such plots reserved for public purpose and impose penalty on encroachers for public welfare.
- Issue writ of mandamus or such other writ directing Respondent authorities to ensure strict compliance with Gujarat Development Regulations.
- Develop public gardens on vacant areas and encroached plots basis the population of surrounding area.
- Initiate strict action against persons responsible for encroachment on public land.
The Petitioner had complained that the Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority in 2007 had earmarked certain land as 'open space', 'local market', 'centre' and 'educational purpose' but over the years encroachers had overtaken the land and were using the land in an unauthorised manner. The plots had also been allotted to third parties which were being used as commercial complexes which frustrated the purpose for which the reservation was made.
The Bench noted that the activist had filed several petitions in the past which were either dismissed or pending. Reliance was placed on Eastern Coalfields Limited vs. Dugal Kumar [(2008) 4 SCC 295] to emphasise the inordinate delay in filing the petition without any explanation.
The Court refused to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction in the case of a person who allowed 'things to happen' and put forth 'stale claims' where third party claims had arisen. Per the Bench, such use of Article 226 would 'unsettle the settled things.'
Additionally, as regards a particular plot, it was indicated that such plot was earmarked for 'local market' and accordingly, it was allotted to a third party through a public auction held in 2003. It was determined that such a commercial complex with several shops would cater to the needs of the local people. Hence, it could not argued that such land was being used for a different purpose other than a local market.
The Bench also stated that even if the contentions of the Petitioner were admitted then also it would disentitle the Court from exercising its jurisdiction after 16-19 years had lapsed. For other plots as well, the Bench held that the plot was used by the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited for a retail outlet which 'definitely caters to the need of the local population.'
Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.
Case No.: C/WPPIL/26/2022
Case Title: NILESHBHAI NARAYANBHAI MISTRY v/s STATE OF GUJARAT
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 232
