In W.P.(C) 9627/2022-DEL HC- Merely because encroachers have built structure on land not belonging to them, it cannot give them any right to continue residing thereon, says Delhi HC Justices Sanjeev Narula & Neena Bansal Krishna [29-06-2022]

Read Order: MEENU SRIVASTAVA v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS 

Tulip Kanth

New Delhi, July 1, 2022: The Delhi High Court has recently denied the claim of the trespassers over public/reserved forest land and opined that petition land is a reserved forest, and cannot be utilised for residential purpose by such trespassers in view of the prohibitions contained under the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 as well as Section 5 of Indian Forest Act, 1927.

While dismissing the writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing/ setting aside of a Notification declaring certain lands as “reserved forest”, the Bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna said, “Merely because the Petitioners have built a structure on the petition land, it cannot give them any right to continue residing thereon when the land underneath the said structure does not belong to them.”

The facts as put forth by the petitioners was that the petition land was initially under the control of the Revenue Department, however, was later declared as “reserved forest” in terms of Section 4 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 by way of the Notification in question. Thereafter, another impugned Notice was issued wherein Petitioners were directed to vacate the petition land within 7 days, failing which, the structures erected thereon would be demolished. However, despite the issuance of the impugned Notice, the petition land always remained residential in nature and Petitioners and other alleged encroachers, continued to reside in the petition land for more than a decade.

It was also alleged that the Petitioners are the legal owners of the houses erected on the petition land and predominantly belong to an economically weaker stratum of society. So, unbeknownst of the impugned Notification, they purchased houses situated in the petition land and so, would be gravely prejudiced by the proposed demolition.

Referring to the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Rajinder Kakkar v. DDA, 1994 (28) DLT 133, the Bench affirmed the view that illegal occupants/encroachers are not entitled to any prior notice. Nonetheless, a vacation Notice (being the impugned notice dated 08th June, 2022) had already been issued to the Petitioners requiring Petitioners to peacefully vacate the petition land within 7 days, added the Bench.

Accordingly, the Bench held that the impugned notification was  still in force which barred  the Petitioners from utilizing the land for residential purpose. Thus, the Petitioners’ claim for protection, based on the ground that they had purchased their houses on the petition land much after the impugned notification dated May 24, 1994 was notified, was held to be unfounded. Hence, the Bench dismissed the Petition and held that the Forest Department is now duty bound to protect the areas and promote forestation.