Bombay HC: No Individual Has Right To Encroach On Public Land, Orders Survey Of 8.09 Hectares Of Gairan Land In Nashik

Mumbai: The Bombay High Court has ruled that no individual has the right to encroach on public land and directed the competent authority to determine whether encroachments exist on over eight hectares of gairan land (grazing land) in Nashik district.

The court was hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by Kailas Somase. The PIL sought the removal of all alleged encroachments, including temporary and permanent structures, from gairan land spanning 8.09 hectares in Dongargaon village, Yeola taluka, Nashik district.

Somase’s advocate Eknath Dhokale argued that illegal encroachments on government gairan land must be cleared. Meanwhile, the state government assured the court that necessary action would be taken to remove any encroachments.

A bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Bharati Dangre observed that while no individual has a right to encroach on public land, determining whether encroachment has occurred is a question of fact and cannot be decided in summary proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution.

“Undoubtedly, no individual has a right to encroach on public land. However, whether or not an individual has encroached on public land, is a question of fact which cannot be determined in summary proceedings … (before HC),” then the bench underlined.

Directing the competent authority of the Gram Panchayat to issue notices to the petitioners and other occupants, the court ordered a survey to ascertain encroachments. The authority has also been asked to provide an opportunity for all parties to present their documents supporting their claims.

“In case the land in question is found to be a government land, the competent authority shall ensure that the encroachments are removed within a period of four months,” the court stated.

Government pleader OA Chandurkar informed the court that police assistance would be provided to the Gram Panchayat for the removal of encroachments. The court further clarified that any person aggrieved by an order directing removal of encroachment is free to pursue legal remedies available to them.