AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This writ petition by way of Public
Interest Litigation is filed with the prayers,
which read as under:
"(A) That this Hon''ble Court may be pleased to admit this petition
(B) That this Hon''ble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction to respondent No.1 to remove unauthorized encroachment made by respondent No.7 company upon the two different ''Sarkari Nel'' in the interest of justice
(C) That this Hon''ble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction to respondent No.1 as well as respondent No.5 Dy. Executive Engineer to remove the unauthorized encroachment made upon the canal which is situated at Block No.138 and 123A & B by respondent No.7 company as per the Govt. Resolution dated 7.11.2014
(D) That this Hon''ble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or
direction to respondent No.1 to implement the order passed by the learned Mamlatdar in its true and correct spirit which is annexed at AnnexureA to this petition
(E) That this Hon''ble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction to respondent authority to consider the representation preferred by present petitioner and thereby remove the encroachment made by respondent company forthwith
(F) That this Hon''ble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction to respondent No.1 to respondent No.4 to the effect that respondent No.7 company made strictly adhere the provisions of Environment Control Act and the Water (Prevention of Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 in the interest of justice
(G) Pending admission hearing and final disposal of this petition, this Hon''ble Court may be pleased to direct respondent No.7 not to function further in the premises where Sarkari Nel was situated
(H) Pending admission hearing and final disposal of this petition, this Hon''ble Court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction to respondent No.7 company
not to restrain villagers to utilize the two different Sarkari Nel for passing and re passing to their fields
(I) Grant such other and further relief(s) as deemed just and proper by this Hon''ble Court in the interest of justice"
The petitioner, claiming to be the
resident of Ranu, Taluka Padra, District
Vadodara, has alleged that the 7th respondent
Company has made an encroachment on the
Government land for its personal gain and closed
the road, which was available to the villagers of
Ranu, to reach their fields. It is alleged that
the 7th respondent company, contrary to conditions
of N.A. Order passed by the Taluka Development
Officer in the year 1998, made constructions. It
is alleged that the said road is shown as
"Sarkari Nel", which is situated between block
Nos.99, 100, 103, 110 and block Nos.121, 115,
114, 112, 111 and also made encroachment upon
another "Sarkari Nel" which is situated between
block Nos.121, 120, 119, 117, 118 and block
Nos.1177, 122, 127, 128, 130, 134, 135. It is
alleged that the said "Sarkari Nel" is being used
by the villagers since last several decades to
reach their fields. It is stated that one
Hiralkumar Chandubhai Patel filed a suit under
section 5 of the Mamlatdar Courts'' Act for
removing the encroachment made by the company
upon "Sarkari Nel". It is alleged that, in spite
of service of notice by the Mamlatdar, such
encroachments are not removed. It is alleged that
apart from the encroachments on "Sarkari Nel",
the 7th respondent company also encroached upon
the private land of Hiralkumar Chandubhai Patel
and made construction upon it without obtaining
any permission from the competent authority. It
is further alleged that, on the road, which is
being used by the villagers, the company also
deployed security guards at the gates, which were
erected illegally on "Sarkari Nel". The further
allegation of the petitioner is that the 7th
respondent company also encroached upon the
canal, which was constructed by the Sardar
Sarovar Narmada Nigam Ltd. It is alleged that
Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Ltd. has acquired
said land for irrigation scheme and same was
utilized for construction of canal for supply of
water to the farmers. Even on that portion of the
land also, encroachment is made by the 7th
respondent. It is alleged that, in spite of
representations, as the competent authorities are
not taking steps to remove the encroachments, the
petitioner was constrained to approach this
Court, seeking the reliefs as prayed for.
At the stage of admission, affidavitin
reply is filed on behalf of the respondent Nos.6
and 7. In the affidavitinreply filed on behalf
of the respondent Nos.6 and 7, while denying
various allegations made by the petitioner, it is
alleged that, the said petition is filed at the
instance of one Hiralkumar Chandubhai Patel, who
is adopting armtwisting methods, by coercing the
respondents to purchase Block No.1177 at
exorbitant and unreasonable price, by creating
obstruction in the functioning of the company. It
is stated that IPC A Laboratories Ltd. is a
pharmaceutical company having 18 different plants
in the country employed with 17,000 people with a
total annual turnover of Rs.3000.00 crores. It
is stated that the said company is one of the
reputed companies and well established brands in
the Indian subcontinent. It is stated that
before setting up of its manufacturing plant
within the limits of Ranu Gram Panchayat,
Vadodara, the company has acquired all necessary
approvals from various State and Central
Government authorities as required under law. It
is stated that the company has obtained 40
different approvals under various State and
Central Government laws. With regard to
allegations of encroachment on the road, it is
stated on behalf of the respondent Nos.6 and 7
that, pursuant to orders of the Mamlatdar in Suit
No.S.R./4/15 dated 16.12.2015, the respondents
have removed all fencing works and the gates,
thereby they have opened the village roads as
originally existing, for access to villagers for
the purpose of ingress and egress. It is stated
that these roads were never used by the villagers
and false allegations are made in the petition.
It is stated that, on the date of filing of the
petition, no installed gates were existing. In
spite of the same, by making false allegations,
the petition is filed. It is stated that, apart
from reviewing the alleged encroachments on the
road, the company has also addressed a letter
dated 24.5.2016 indicating that the company has
provided alternative way and access road, which
is broader and more convenient than the earlier
village road, to the farmers. With regard to the
allegation of encroachment on the canal and
construction over it, the allegation is
specifically denied by the respondents and it is
further stated that, there is no obstruction made
to the flow of water in the canal and no effluent
discharge is made in the clean water of the
canal. It is stated that pursuant to an
application dated 20.6.2012 made by the
respondents to the Executive Engineer, Sardar
Sarovar Narmada Nigam Ltd. in connection with
making 100 metres of minor canals of Narmada
Project from Block Nos.132, 124 and 138 of
Village Ranu, Taluka Padra underground, the
Executive Engineer, Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam
Ltd. permitted the respondent Nos.6 and 7 for
making 100 metres of canal underground by order
dated 29.4.2013. The said proceeding/permission
letter dated 29.4.2013 is placed on record.
Therefore, it is stated that, allegation of
encroachments on the canal is without any
permission is false and denied in toto. It is
alleged that in the private interest, the
petition is filed. It is submitted that one
Bhailalbhai Shankarbhai Patel executed a
registered agreement to sale with possession on
28.2.1995 for sale of property bearing Survey
No.1422, Block No.1177 admeasuring 04162 for a
sum of Rs.1,56,075/ in favour of IPC A
Laboratories Ltd. and pursuant to said agreement,
a sum of Rs.73,150/ was paid to the original
owner and one Hiralkumar Chandubhai Patel
fraudulently executed a sale deed with regard to
very same land. Since the possession is already
taken and is lying with the respondents, they
have filed two civil suits one, for specific
performance and injunction and second, for
cancellation of the sale deed executed with
regard to aforesaid land. It is stated that, only
at the instance of third parties, the present
petition is filed by making false allegations.
Affidavitinrejoinder is filed by the
petitioner, reiterating the contentions raised in
the petition and further stated that alleged
encroachments are not removed.
When this matter was listed on
14.6.2017, it was represented by learned counsel
appearing for the respondent Nos.6 and 7 that the
encroachments were removed and now the road is
kept open for the villagers to pass through,
which is disputed by the learned counsel for the
petitioner. In view of such statement made on
behalf of the respondent Nos.6 and 7 company,
which is disputed by the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner in this petition,
this Court by order dated 14.6.2017 issued
directions directing the Mamlatdar, Padra, to
make a local inspection and report to this Court
whether, encroachments are removed and road is
kept open or not. In view of such order passed by
this Court, the Mamlatdar, Padra, has filed
affidavit which was sworn on 22.6.2017. In the
affidavit, it is categorically stated that
pursuant to directions of this Court, a local
inspection was carried out in which, it was
noticed that the encroachments have not been
entirely removed by the private respondent. It is
stated that overhead pipelines still remain. It
is, however, submitted that said encroachment
does not hinder the right of way of the general
public and, therefore, the road is open to
commute. The statement made in paragraph No.2 of
the affidavit is as under:
"I say and submit that I file the present affidavit in due compliance of the order of this Hon''ble Court dated 14/06/2017. I state that pursuant to the directions of this Hon''ble Court, a local inspection was carried out in which it was noticed that the encroachments have not been entirely removed by the private respondent. Overhead pipelines
still remain. It is however submitted that said encroachment does not hinder the right to way of the general public and, therefore, the road is open for commute. I annex herewith a copy of the report of the local inspection for the perusal of this Hon''ble Court as ANNEXURE R/1."
After filing such affidavit by the
Mamlatdar, Padra, disputing the contents thereof,
further affidavit is filed stating that, the
company has made overhead encroachment for
transporting hazardous chemicals through
pipeline. With regard to alternative way, which
was provided by the company, it is stated that
said way is not easily accessible, as such, the
encroachment is not removed.
We have heard Mr. Japan V. Dave, learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.
K.M.Antani, learned Assistant Government Pleader
appearing for the respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 and
Mr.Dipen C. Shah, learned counsel appearing for
the respondent Nos.6 and 7.
It is specifically argued by the learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner that the
entire encroachments were not removed and
overhead pipelines were laid from one side of the
road to the other side. It is stated that, such
pipelines are used for moving the hazardous
chemical material and same is dangerous to the
public, if they are allowed to continue. It is
further submitted that, there are security staff
of the respondent Nos.6 and 7, who are
obstructing the villagers from entering into
their fields. It is stated that, as the said
"Nel" is of the Government, the respondent
Nos.6 and 7 have no authority either to obstruct
or encroach upon the same so as to deny access to
the villagers to reach their fields.
On the other hand, Mr.Dipen C. Shah,
learned counsel appearing for the respondent
Nos.6 and 7, taking us to the contents of
affidavitinreply filed by the respondent Nos.6
and 7, other materials and photographs produced
on record, submitted that there are no
encroachments as of now and even on the date of
filing of affidavit, alleged encroachments were
not there at all. In spite of the same, by making
false allegations, this petition is filed at the
instance of third parties against whom, civil
suits are pending. It is submitted that, it is
not a bona fide litigation but a sponsored
litigation at the instance of third parties
against whom, civil suits are pending with the
company.
Mr. K.M.Antani, learned Assistant
Government Pleader appearing for the respondent
Nos.1, 2 and 3, pointed out and relied on the
affidavit filed by the Mamlatdar, Padra, pursuant
to order passed by this Court dated 14.6.2017.
Having heard the learned counsels
appearing for the respective parties, we have
perused the materials on record and the
photographs, which were produced during the
course of hearing. From the materials placed on
record and the stand of the respondent Nos.6 and
7 in the affidavitinreply, it appears that,
earlier, there were encroachments on the road,
which is a "Sarkari Nel". It appears to be large
extent of land, which is owned by the company,
which is a pharmaceutical company having
buildings on both sides of the road. As evident
from the photographs placed on record during the
course of hearing, it appears that, there was an
overhead pipeline, which was taken from one side
of the road to the other side and there are
company buildings located on both sides of the
road. It is also submitted by the learned
counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.6 and 7
that, there are no joints and all the pipelines,
which were laid, are without any joints and,
therefore, there is no question of any leakage of
any material, which will hinder the commuting
public. It is submitted that, no public interest
is suffered by using that overhead pipeline,
which is required for the purpose of running the
company.
The statement is made by the learned
counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.6 and 7
that the encroachments were removed. When the same
was disputed by the learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner, this Court directed the Mamlatdar,
Padra, to make an inspection and report to this
court whether, encroachments are removed or not.
It is stated in the affidavit filed by the
Mamlatdar, Padra that, pursuant to orders of this
Court, he made an inspection and noticed that
overhead pipelines still remain, as such, he has
stated that entire encroachments were not removed.
It is also stated that, such encroachment of
overhead pipelines does not hinder the right of
way of the general public and, therefore, road is
open to commute. Although it is disputed by the
learned counsel for the petitioner that the
Mamlatdar did not make an inspection, but there is
no reason to disbelieve the affidavit filed by the
Mamlatdar. Photographs are placed on record. It is
stated in the affidavit filed by the Mamlatdar,
pursuant to orders of this Court dated dated
14.6.2017, that all the encroachments are removed
on the road, which is passing through the middle
of the lands owned by the company of the
respondent Nos.6 and 7. It appears that the
company is established by taking approvals from
all the necessary competent authorities. It is
stated that the company is a reputed company
having branches all over the country with an
annual turnover of more than Rs.3000.00 crores.
It appears that the company buildings are
completed and spread on both sides of the road. At
this stage, if we order for removal of overhead
pipeline, which is laid for the purpose of running
the factory, it may lead to great hardship to the
company. In any event, it is clear from the
affidavit filed by the Mamlatdar, Padra that such
overhead pipeline, which still remains, does not
hinder the right of way of the general public and,
therefore, the road is open to commute. In view of
such statement made by the Mamlatdar, Padra in the
affidavit, we are of the view that by continuing
the overhead pipelines on the road, which is not
coming in the way of the general public to use the
road, no public interest is suffered.
Even with regard to alleged
encroachments on the canal, we are satisfied from
the material placed on record that, there is no
encroachment on the canal and pursuant to
application of the respondent Nos.6 and 7 on
20.6.2012 to the Executive Engineer, Sardar
Sarovar Narmada Nigam Ltd. in connection with
making 100 metres of minor canals of Narmada
Project from Block Nos.132, 124 and 138 of Village
Ranu, Taluka Padra underground, the Executive
Engineer has granted permission by proceeding
dated 29.4.2013, copy of which is also placed on
record. In that view of the matter, there is no
encroachment in any portion of the canal also.
For the aforesaid reasons, we are
satisfied that there is no encroachment on the
road as of now, as such, we do not find any merit
in the petition for grant of directions as prayed
for.
At the same time, we place on record the
statement made by the learned counsel appearing
for the respondent Nos.6 and 7 that, no
obstruction would be caused for using the road by
the villagers and security men of the company
also would not cause any obstruction to any of
the villagers for using the road. Subject to the
above, this petition is dismissed. No order as to
costs.