RAKESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State. The pleadings in the writ petition are too short and absolutely vague so as to issue any direction for eviction of private opposite parties who are allegedly said to have taken possession over the pond or the land of Gram Sabha or said to have encroached upon the land of Gram Sabha. We also feel that unless a strong case is made out, the High Court would be loath in issuing any such direction, particularly when any enquiry or direction issued may result into demolition or may affect the rights of any persons without even being adjudicated upon in the appropriate proceedings. We also find it necessary to observe that if any person encroaches upon or has encroached upon the Gram Sabha land including the pond, it is the legal duty and obligation of the Land Management Committee/Gram Sabha to take appropriate action and the Pradhan or Lekhpal is also obliged to submit a report and initiate appropriate proceedings against such persons. The Sub Divisional Magistrate or the District Magistrate is under legal obligation to see that Gram Sabha land is protected from being encroached upon or misused by any person. We, thus, under the circumstances do not find any ground to issue any direction for eviction of private parties but it is the obligation of the Gram Sabha and District Authorities to initiate appropriate proceedings in accordance with law, in case the land of the Gram Sabha has been encroached upon by private persons. With the aforesaid direction, the petition is dismissed.