AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P.R. Ramachandra Menon, CJ
Review is sought for in respect of the judgment passed by this Court on 13.09.2017, whereby the writ petition filed as 'Public Interest Litigation'
with regard to the encroachment over the Government properties and the further course of action taken from the part of the Government was
disposed off.
Dr. N.K. Shukla, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Review Petitioners submits that, much prejudice has been caused to the Review
Petitioners so far as the property concerned was purchased by them from the persons concerned for valuable sale consideration and they being the
bonafide purchasers, no proceedings could be pursued against them merely on the basis of the direction given by this Court as per Annexure- A/1,
which hence is sought to be reviewed. We heard the learned Deputy Advocate General as well.
Going by the proceedings, it is seen that the case projected before this Court was taken note of by the learned Judges in 'paragraph 2' of the
judgment that there cannot be any 'merit adjudication' by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The
verdict also mentioned that the particulars of the persons who encroached into the property or their connection with the transactions were also not
brought on record, however adding that, if the property was actually belonging to the Government, it was necessary for the Government to take
appropriate measures to bring back such property to the Government, in accordance with law. Reserving the rights and liberties of all interested
parties concerned, the matter was disposed off accordingly, without entering into any finding on merit. This is more discernible from paragraphs 2 and
6 of the judgment, which are extracted below :
Looking at the reliefs qua the pleadings and evidence it may not be appropriate or possible for the writ court to embark upon an adjudication by
treating this writ petition as a public interest litigation, particularly when very many issues of facts touching possession and identification of lands and
laying the boundaries may arise, ultimately. Yet we are inclined to think that the concern sounded by the Petitioner needs the attention of the
jurisdictional officials of the State Government.
For the aforesaid reasons, this writ petition is ordered directing that due action shall follow in accordance with law in the light of what is stated
above and taking note of the pleadings in the writ petition; however, without treating any of the contents of this judgment as operative against the
legitimate rights of any person in occupation or possession, to raise all such contentions as may be available in accordance with law, on any of the
issue that may arise for consideration. Let such proceedings be initiated by the competent authority within an outer limit of one month now, and such
proceedings shall conclude at the earliest.
After hearing and after going through the materials on record, we are of the view that there is 'no error apparent on the face of record' to exercise
the limited jurisdiction of this Court by way of review. We find support from the ruling rendered by the Apex Court in Smt. Meera Bhanja v. Smt.
Nirmala Kumari Choudhury, AIR 1995 SC 455.
The review petition stands dismissed, without prejudice to the rights and liberties of the Petitioners to move the competent authorities so as to
establish the rights in connection with the property, if at all any. All contentions are left open.