RTI Requests

 

REGISTERED

 

A/G-398, Shalimar Bagh,

Delhi-110088.

February  8, 2011.

The District Magistrate,

Bulandshahr, U.P.

 

 

Sir,

 

Kindly see the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgement dated 28^th January, 2011 (copy enclosed) regarding gram panchayat lands.

 

About 40 bighas of gram panchayatlandofVil. Kurbal Banaras, Tehsil and District Bulandshahr had been allotted to ineligible persons.  They are:

 

1. Smt. Gendo w/o Sh. Jaipal who is a government servant working in the Electricity Department of U.P. Government

 

1. S/Shri Nisar, Iqbal, Qamruddin.

 

They are neither resident of the village nor scheduled caste. Hence allotment of land to them was illegal.  The land was subsequently converted in their names on permanent basis (seerdari) which is all the more illegal.

 

In view of the Supreme Court’s orders the said land may please be restored to the gram panchayat of village Kurbal Banaras.

 

 

Yours faithfully,

( H.C. Sharma )

Encl: As above.

 

 

 

 

 

 

REGISTERED

 

 

 

A/G-398, Shalimar Bagh,

Delhi-110088.

April 15, 2011.

The Chief Secretary,

Government of Uttar Pradesh,

U.P. Secretariat Complex,

Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh

 

 

Sir,

 

 

There are many landless scheduled caste poor people in village Kurbal Banaras, tehsil and district Bulandshahr, U.P. As per law the gram panchayat land should be allotted/leased to such persons or used for community purposes.  However,  by bribing the gram pradhan and the district administration officials, some unscrupulous persons who are neither resident of the village nor scheduled caste or poor, have illegally grabbed large tracts (about 40 bighas) of gram panchayat land of the village.  The district administration violating all norms and rules allotted this land to these well to do residents of other villages initially on lease and later converted it in their names on permanent basis. The location of this land is adjacent to the village abadi and between the railway line (Khurja –Meerut) and pucca coal tar road from Bulandshahr to village Jainpur which passes through village Kurbal Banaras and its value is now in crores of rupees. The allottees of this land are :

 

1. Smt. Gendo w/o Sh. Jaipal who is a government servant working in the Electricity Department of U.P. Government

 

1. S/Shri Nisar, Iqbal, Qamruddin.

 

None of them is resident of village Kurbal Banaras. Nor they are scheduled caste or poor. The allotment of gram panchayat land to them was, therefore, totally illegal and converting the land in their names permanently is still more illegal.

 

In this connection the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgement dated 28 January, 2011 in  Civil Appeal No.1132/2011; Jagpal Singh & Ors  Vs  State of Punjab & Ors,  may kindly be seen. The following observations of theHon’ble Court are noteworthy :

 

“ What we have witnessed since Independence, however, is that in large parts of the country this common village land has been grabbed by unscrupulous persons using muscle power, money power or political clout, and in many States now there is not an inch of such land left for the common use of the people of the village, though it may exist on paper. People with power and pelf operating in villages all over India systematically encroached upon communal lands and put them to uses totally inconsistent with its original character, for personal aggrandizement at the cost of the village community. This was done with active connivance of the State authorities and local powerful vested interests and goondas. This appeal is a glaring example of this lamentable state of affairs.”

“In Uttar Pradesh the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1954 was widely misused to usurp Gram Sabha lands either with connivance of the Consolidation Authorities, or by forging orders purported to have been passed by Consolidation Officers in the long past so that they may not be compared with the original revenue record showing the land as Gram Sabha land, as these revenue records had been weeded out. Similar may have been the practice in other States. The time has now come to review all these orders by which the common village land has been grabbed by such fraudulent practices.”

“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/unauthorized occupants of 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 inIndia 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 show cause 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 regularizing the illegal possession. Regularization should only be permitted in exceptional cases e.g. where lease has been granted under some Government notification to landless labourers or members of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes, or where there is already a school, dispensary or other public utility on the land. Let a copy of this order be sent to all Chief Secretaries of all States andUnionTerritories inIndia who will ensure strict and prompt  compliance of this order  and  submit compliance reports to this Court from time to time.  Although we have dismissed this appeal, it shall be listed before this Court from time to time (on dates fixed by us), so that we can monitor implementation of our directions herein. List again before us on 3.5.2011 on which date all Chief Secretaries inIndia will submit their reports.”

The above judgement is mutatis mutandis applicable in the instant case. It has been clearly laid down in the judgement that allotment of gram panchayat land to private persons is illegal. This order is applicable with retrospective effect.  In view of the aforesaid it is requested that the gram panchayat land illegally allotted to the above mentioned persons (who are neither resident of the village nor Scheduled Caste or poor) may be ordered to be restored to the gram panchayat of village Kurbal Banaras to be allotted/leased to the landless scheduled caste/poor persons resident of the village or to be used for community purposes i.e. for the common use of the villagers as playground, grazing field, pond, establishing school or hospital etc.

 

A copy of the Supreme Court’s judgement is enclosed.

 

 

Yours faithfully,

( H.C. Sharma )

Encl: As above

 

 

 

 

 

 

REGISTERED

 

 

A/G-398, Shalimar Bagh,

Delhi-110088.

12^th May, 2011.

 

 

Public Information Officer,

Office of Upper Zila Adhikari (Administration),

Collectorate, Kutchery Road,

Bulandshahr,  Uttar Pradesh.

 

 

Sir,

 

 

APPLICATION UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT 2005

 

 

Please refer to your reply dated 30-04-2011 (copy enclosed) in response to my RTI applications.  Further to this, please provide the following information :-

 

 

1. In para 5 of your reply it has been stated that the Gram Panchayat land of village Kurbal Banaras was allotted to Smt. Gendo w/o Shri Jaipal, Shri Nisar, Shri Iqbal and Shri Qumruddin in the year 1967 on Seerdari (permanent ownership) basis.  Please quote the rules which allow such allotment of Gram Panchayat land.  Also state up to what period/year, the revenue/land records are available in your office.

 

1. Please give details of the lands in the possession of the above mentioned persons in village Kurbal Banaras and in other villages stating whether the same is  on lease/patta or seerdari/permanent ownership basis etc.

 

1. As per the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgement dated 28 January, 2011 (copy enclosed)  the title of Gram Panchayat land cannot be transferred permanently to anybody under any circumstances (see the underlined portion in para 4 of the judgement). Therefore, in whatever manner the Gram Panchayat land of village Kurbal Banaras was allotted to the above mentioned persons, the right of the community i.e. Gram Panchayat would still prevail over this land.  According to para 20 of the judgement (see underlined portion) such allotments/orders are illegal and the cases will have to be re-opened/reviewed in view of the apex court’s orders.  In para 4 of your reply it has been stated that there is no need for any action against pattadharis/seerdharis.  It means you want to protect such illegal allotments ignoring the Supreme Court’s orders.  Please state under what provisions of law you are challenging even the apex court’s orders.

 

1. Please state what action has been taken by the DM or Tehsildar or any other officer on my application dated  8 February, 2011 (copy enclosed)  addressed to DM, Bulandshahr which was sent by Registered Post.  If it is being dealt with by an officer other than the Tehsildar, this point may be forwarded to the concerned officer and on receipt of the information a consolidated reply be sent to me by you.

 

1. Give details of Gram Sabha/Panchayat land of other villages in district Bulandshahr which has been allotted on permanent ownership basis.  Apparently such cases will have to be re-opened  in view of the Supreme Court’s above mentioned order.  If the complete information is not available in Tehsil, Bulandshahr, this point may be forwarded to other Tehsils also and on receipt of information a consolidated reply may be sent to me by you.

 

1. While allotting land on leasehold/patta basis, whether any time limit is fixed or it is for unlimited period.  Lease is always for a certain period.  Please quote the rules available with you on the subject and also provide me a copy thereof.

 

1. When the Gram Panchayat allots land on lease/patta whether the District/Tehsil Administration approves it. If so, whether the truthfulness/validity/correctness of the order/allotment is verified before approving it.  If the order of the Gram Panchayat is not in accordance with the rules, does the District/Tehsil Administration has power to disapprove/reject it.  Please quote the mechanism which is adopted to very the facts.

 

1. In para 1 of your reply it has been stated that allotments of Gram Panchayat land of village Kurbal Banaras were made on 24-11-1987, 30-09-1989 and 09-02-1996 to poor residents of the village who were landless or were having less than 3¹/₈  acre of land.  There are many poor scheduled caste landless residents in the village.  Under what provisions of law preference was given over such people to those who were having land in the village even if it was less than 3¹/₈  acre.

 

1.  Please also state if the lease/pattas made on the above mentioned dates are for certain period.  If so, give details of the time-frame in each case. If these are for unlimited period, please quote the relevant rule permitting such allotments.

 

1. Whether any communication has been received by the DM or Tehsildar from the Chief Secretary/UP Government in response to the above quoted judgement of the Supreme Court or in response to my petition addressed to the Chief Secretary relating to the above mentioned case. If yes,   a copy thereof may be provided to me.

 

1. Please provide me a list of all the officials posted in Tehsil, Bulandshahr (including the Tehsildar and Naib Tehsildars) giving their names, designations and the work allotted to each.

 

 

The  reply may please be sent through registered post.

 

Please acknowledge receipt of this letter.

 

 

A Postal Order for Rs.10/- towards application fee is enclosed.

Yours faithfully,

( H.C. Sharma )

Encls :  As above

 

 

 

 

 

 

REGISTERED

 

A/G-398, Shalimar Bagh,

Delhi-110088.

June 17,  2011.

 

Public Information Officer,

Office of Upper Zila Adhikari (Administration),

Collectorate, Kutchery Road,

Bulandshahr-203001,  Uttar Pradesh.

 

Sir,

 

APPLICATION UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT 2005

 

          Please refer to your letter No.Rajya Sahayak-Public Information-2010-150 dated 31 May, 2011 (in response to my  RTI application dated May 12, 2011), which is addressed to Tehsildar, Syana and a copy endorsed to me.

Though your above letter is dated May 31, 2011 but it was  received by me on  June 11, 2011 i.e. after 11 days.  I do not think the Postal Department is so incompetent as to take 11 days to deliver to me atDelhia letter originating from Bulandshahr which is less than 100 KMs fromDelhi.  They usually deliver the letters within two to three days.  Apparently there is something wrong with the system of dispatch of dak in your office.

As per provisions of the RTI Act the Public Information Officer is required to provide the information within 30 days.  The stipulated period has already expired.   Not providing the information within the prescribed period is as good as denying the information and   it attracts penalty.  Whatever may be the procedure in your office for obtaining information from the subordinate offices, the responsibility of providing information on time to the RTI applicant is entirely of the Public Information Officer.

Please provide the following information :-

1. My above mentioned RTI application has been forwarded by you to the Tehsildar, Syana,  The information sought pertains to Tehsildar, Bulandshahr.  Is it that Tehsildar, Syana is also looking after the work of Tehsil, Bulandshahr ?   If not,  please state for what good reasons it has been sent to him.

 

1. At point no.5 of my RTI application dated May 12, 2011, the information sought pertains to other Tehsils of district Bulandshahr.  Please state how Tehsildar, Syana would be able to provide information related to areas beyond  his jurisdiction.  Has he been also designated as Public Information Officer or Assistant Public Information Officer ?

 

1. The RTI applications are being forwarded by you to the subordinate offices who directly send replies to the applicants.  This is different from the procedure laid down in the RTI Act wherein the Public Information Officer, after obtaining information from the concerned Branch/Section,  sends a reply to the applicant.  Please state if it is your own innovation or the procedure has been laid down by a higher authority.  If so, please provide me a copy of the relevant order.

 

1. Please state if there are any other officers in Collectorate/District Administration, Bulandshahr who have been designated as Public Information Officers or Assistant Public Information Officers. If so, give details so that in future I may directly address my applications to the concerned Public Information Officers/Assistant Public Information Officers.

 

1. My RTI application of  May 12, 2011 was forwarded by you to Tehsildar, Syana on May 31, 2011 (factually on around June 9, 2011) i.e. after about 28 days whereas according to RTI Act it should have been forwarded within 3 days.  RTI applications require time bound action, as a reply has to be sent by the PIO within 30 days.  As such 28 days’ delay cannot be treated as a routine matter. The stipulated 30 days time is already over.  Please state the reasons for holding up the application in your office for such a long time.

 

A Postal Order for Rs.10/- is enclosed towards application fee.

Yours faithfully,

( H.C. Sharma )

Encl : Postal Order.

 

REGISTERED

 

A/G-398, Shalimar Bagh,

Delhi-110088.

July 21, 2011.

 

The District Magistrate/

Appellate Authority,

Collectorate, Kutchery Road,

Bulandshahr-203001,  Uttar Pradesh.

 

Sir,

APPEAL UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT 2005

 

          I had sought some information from the Public Information Officer, Collectorate, Bulandshahr vide my applications dated May 12, 2011 and June 17, 2011 (copies enclosed).

The application dated May 12, 2011 was forwarded by the Public Information Officer to the Tehsildar, Syana (even though the matter relates to Tehsil, Bulandshahr) and the latter has chosen not to reply.  The application dated June 17, 2011 has been held up by the Public Information Officer himself who has not provided the desired information till date. This shows the lackadaisical attitude of these officers even towards time-bound matters. Since the stipulated period of 30 days has already expired and there has been no response either from the Tehsildar, Syna or the Public Information Officer, Bulandshahr,  I am preferring this Appeal to you with the prayer that the Public Information Officer may be directed to provide the desired information to me within a time-frame as may be specified by you.

Thanking you,

Yours faithfully,

( H.C. Sharma )

Encls : As above

 

REGISTERED

 

 

A/G-398, Shalimar Bagh,

Delhi-110088.

24 August, 2011

The Public Information Officer,

Office of the Chief Secretary,

Government of Uttar Pradesh,

U.P. Secretariat Complex,

Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh

 

 

Sir,

 

 

APPLICATION UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT 2005

 

 

Kindly refer to my Petition dated 15 April, 2011 (copy enclosed) and provide the following information :-

1. Whether my above Petition was seen by the Chief Secretary or not.
2. If yes, what orders/instructions/directions he recorded on it.  Any order/circular issued thereon by his junior officer.  A copy thereof may be provided to me.
3. What action was taken thereafter.
4. If no action was taken, the reasons thereof.
5. What is the policy/practice/procedure laid down to deal with petitions received from the public.  A copy thereof may be provided to me.

 

A Postal Order for Rs.10/- is enclosed towards application fee.

 

 

Yours faithfully,

( H.C. Sharma )

Encls : As above

 

 

 

 

Jagpal Singh & Ors. vs State Of Punjab & Ors. on 28 January, 2011

 

Cites 6 docs

 

The Uttar Pradesh Appropriation Act, 1996

Krishnan vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 14 August, 2006

Hinch Lal Tiwari vs Kamala Devi And Ors. on 25 July, 2001

Friends Colony Development   vs  State Of Orissa & Ors on 1 November, 2004

M.I. Builders Pvt. Ltd vs Radhey Shyam Sahu And Others on 26 July, 1999

 

 

Supreme Court ofIndia

 

Bench: M Katju, G S Misra

IN THE SUPREME COURT OFINDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.1132 /2011 @ SLP(C) No.3109/2011

(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) CC No. 19869 of 2010)

Jagpal Singh & Ors. .. Appellant (s)

-versus-

State of Punjab & Ors. .. Respondent (s)

JUDGMENT

Markandey Katju, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellants.

3. Since time immemorial there have been common lands inhering in the village communities in India, variously called gram sabha land, gram panchayat land, (in many North Indian States), shamlat deh (in Punjab etc.),mandaveli and poramboke land (in South India), Kalam, Maidan, etc., depending on the nature of user. These public utility lands in the villages were for centuries used for the common benefit of the villagers of the village such as ponds for various purposes e.g. for their cattle to drink and bathe, for storing their harvested grain, as grazing ground for the cattle, threshing floor, maidan for playing by children, carnivals, circuses, ramlila, cart stands, water bodies, passages, cremation ground or graveyards, etc. These lands stood vested through local laws in the State, which handed over their management to Gram Sabhas/Gram Panchayats. They were generally treated as inalienable in order that their status as community land be preserved. There were no doubt some exceptions to this rule which permitted the Gram Sabha/Gram Panchayat to lease out some of this land to landless labourers and members of the scheduled castes/tribes, but this was only to be done in exceptional cases.

4. The protection of common rights of the villagers were so zealously protected that some legislation expressly mentioned that even the vesting of the property with the State did not mean that the common rights of villagers were lost by such vesting. Thus, in Chigurupati Venkata Subbayya vs. Paladuge Anjayya, 1972(1) SCC 521 (529) this Court observed : “It is true that the suit lands in view of Section 3 of the Estates Abolition Act did vest in the Government. That by itself does not mean that the rights of the community over it were taken away. Our attention has not been invited to any provision of law under which the rights of the community over those lands can be said to have been taken away. The rights of the community over the suit lands were not created by the landholder. Hence those rights cannot be said to have been abrogated by Section(3) of the Estates Abolition Act.”

5. What we have witnessed since Independence, however, is that in large parts of the country this common village land has been grabbed by unscrupulous persons using muscle power, money power or political clout, and in many States now there is not an inch of such land left for the common use of the people of the village, though it may exist on paper. People with power and pelf operating in villages all overIndiasystematically encroached upon communal lands and put them to uses totally inconsistent with its original character, for personal aggrandizement at the cost of the village community. This was done with active connivance of the State authorities and local powerful vested interests and goondas. This appeal is a glaring example of this lamentable state of affairs.

6. This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of a Division Bench of thePunjaband Haryana High Court dated 21.5.2010. By that judgment the Division Bench upheld the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the High Court dated 10.2.2010.

7. It is undisputed that the appellants herein are neither the owner nor the tenants of the land in question which is recorded as a pond situated in village Rohar Jagir, Tehsil and District Patiala. They are in fact trespassers and unauthorized occupants of the land relating Khewat Khatuni No. 115/310, Khasra No. 369 (84-4) in the said village. They appear to have filled in the village pond and made constructions thereon.

8. The Gram Panchayat, Rohar Jagir filed an application under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 to evict the appellants herein who had unauthorizedly occupied the aforesaid land. In its petition the Gram Panchayat, Rohar Jagir alleged that the land in question belongs to the Gram Panchayat, Rohar as is clear from the revenue records. However, the respondents (appellants herein) forcibly occupied the said land and started making constructions thereon illegally. An application was consequently moved before the Deputy Commissioner informing him about the illegal acts of the respondents (appellants herein) and stating that the aforesaid land is recorded in the revenue records as Gair Mumkin Toba i.e. a village pond. The villagers have been using the same, since drain water of the village falls into the pond, and it is used by the cattle of the village for drinking and bathing. Since the respondents (appellants herein) illegally occupied the said land an FIR was filed against them but to no avail. It was alleged that the respondents (appellants herein) have illegally raised constructions on the said land, and the lower officials of the department and even the Gram Panchayat colluded with them.

9. Instead of ordering the eviction of these unauthorized occupants, the Collector,Patialasurprisingly held that it would not be in the public interest to dispossess them, and instead directed the Gram Panchayat, Rohar to recover the cost of the land as per the Collector’s rates from the respondents (appellants herein). Thus, the Collector colluded in regularizing this illegality on the ground that the respondents (appellants herein) have spent huge money on constructing houses on the said land.

10. Some persons then appealed to the learned Commissioner against the said order of the Collector dated 13.9.2005 and this appeal was allowed on 12.12.2007. The Learned Commissioner held that it was clear that the Gram Panchayat was colluding with these respondents (appellants herein), and it had not even opposed the order passed by the Collector in which directions were issued to the Gram Panchayat to transfer the property to these persons, nor filed an appeal against the Collector’s order.

11. The learned Commissioner held that the village pond has been used for the common purpose of the villagers and cannot be allowed to be encroached upon by any private respondents, whether Jagirdars or anybody else. Photographs submitted before the learned Commissioner showed that recent attempts had been made to encroach into the village pond by filling it up with earth and making new constructions thereon. The matter had gone to the officials for removal of these illegal constructions, but no action was taken for reasons best known to the authorities at that time. The learned Commissioner was of the view that regularizing such kind of illegal encroachment is not in the interest of the Gram Panchayat. The learned Commissioner held that Khasra No. 369 (84-4) is a part of the village pond, and the respondents (appellants herein) illegally constructed their houses at the site without any jurisdiction and without even any resolution of the Gram Panchayat.

12. Against the order of the learned Commissioner a Writ Petition was filed before the learned Single Judge of the High Court which was dismissed by the judgment dated 10.2.2010, and the judgment of learned Single Judge has been affirmed in appeal by the Division Bench of the High Court. Hence this appeal.

13. We find no merit in this appeal. The appellants herein were trespassers who illegally encroached on to the Gram Panchayat land by using muscle power/money power and in collusion with the officials and even with the Gram Panchayat. We are of the opinion that such kind of blatant illegalities must not be condoned. Even if the appellants have built houses on the land in question they must be ordered to remove their constructions, and possession of the land in question must be handed back to the Gram Panchayat. Regularizing such illegalities must not be permitted because it is Gram Sabha land which must be kept for the common use of villagers of the village. The letter dated 26.9.2007 of the Government of Punjab permitting regularization of possession of these unauthorized occupants is not valid. We are of the opinion that such letters are wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. In our opinion such illegalities cannot be regularized. We cannot allow the common interest of the villagers to suffer merely because the unauthorized occupation has subsisted for many years.

14. In M.I. Builders (P) Ltd. vs. Radhey Shyam Sahu, 1999(6) SCC 464 the Supreme Court ordered restoration of a park after demolition of a shopping complex constructed at the cost of over Rs.100 crores. In Friends Colony Development Committee vs. State of Orissa, 2004 (8) SCC 733 this Court held that even where the law permits compounding of unsanctioned constructions, such compounding should only be by way of an exception. In our opinion this decision will apply with even greater force in cases of encroachment of village common land. Ordinarily, compounding in such cases should only be allowed where the land has been leased to landless labourers or members of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes, or the land is actually being used for a public purpose of the village e.g. running a school for the villagers, or a dispensary for them.

15. In many states Government orders have been issued by the State Government permitting allotment of Gram Sabha land to private persons and commercial enterprises on payment of some money. In our opinion all such Government orders are illegal, and should be ignored.

16. The present is a case of land recorded as a village pond. This Court in Hinch Lal Tiwari vs. Kamala Devi, AIR 2001 SC 3215 (followed by the Madras High Court in L. Krishnan vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 2005(4) CTC 1 Madras) held that land recorded as a pond must not be allowed to be allotted to anybody for construction of a house or any allied purpose. The Court ordered the respondents to vacate the land they had illegally occupied, after taking away the material of the house. We pass a similar order in this case.

17. In this connection we wish to say that our ancestors were not fools. They knew that in certain years there may be droughts or water shortages for some other reason, and water was also required for cattle to drink and bathe in etc. Hence they built a pond attached to every village, a tank attached to every temple, etc. These were their traditional rain water harvesting methods, which served them for thousands of years.

18. Over the last few decades, however, most of these ponds in our country have been filled with earth and built upon by greedy people, thus destroying their original character. This has contributed to the water shortages in the country.

19. Also, many ponds are auctioned off at throw away prices to businessmen for fisheries in collusion with authorities/Gram Panchayat officials, and even this money collected from these so called auctions are not used for the common benefit of the villagers but misappropriated by certain individuals. The time has come when these malpractices must stop.

20. In Uttar Pradesh the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1954 was widely misused to usurp Gram Sabha lands either with connivance of the Consolidation Authorities, or by forging orders purported to have been passed by Consolidation Officers in the long past so that they may not be compared with the original revenue record showing the land as Gram Sabha land, as these revenue records had been weeded out. Similar may have been the practice in other States. The time has now come to review all these orders by which the common village land has been grabbed by such fraudulent practices.

21. For the reasons given above there is no merit in this appeal and it is dismissed.

22. 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/unauthorized occupants of 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 inIndiaare 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 show cause 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 regularizing the illegal possession. Regularization should only be permitted in exceptional cases e.g. where lease has been granted under some Government notification to landless labourers or members of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes, or where there is already a school, dispensary or other public utility on the land.

23. Let a copy of this order be sent to all Chief Secretaries of all States andUnionTerritoriesinIndiawho will ensure strict and prompt compliance of this order and submit compliance reports to this Court from time to time.

24. Although we have dismissed this appeal, it shall be listed before this Court from time to time (on dates fixed by us), so that we can monitor implementation of our directions herein. List again before us on 3.5.2011 on which date all Chief Secretaries inIndiawill submit their reports.

J. Markandey Katju

J. Gyan Sudha Mishra

New Delhi;

January 28, 2011