S V RAMANA Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) After independence, people living in different parts of the country have witnessed widespread land grabbing and unchecked encroachments of public lands and properties. People living in every city and town in the country, big or small, have suffered on account of land grabbing and encroachment of public properties. As a consequence of encroachment of public lands and properties, the residents of every urban area have to suffer the agony of long queues of vehicles on the road, traffic chaos, high degree of pollution etc. The cities of the State of Andhra Pradesh are no exception. In every part of the State, the lands earmarked for or sought to be utilized for widening of roads and construction of buildings meant for institutions and public facilities have been encroached by unscrupulous elements. The Courts are also burdened with litigation by the land grabbers and encroachers who question the action taken by the public authorities to re-claim possession of the public properties.

(2.) Some of the decisions rendered by the Courts, including the famous judgment in Olga Tellis Vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation have been widely misused by those who take law into their hands and grab public properties for seeking protection of illegal encroachments of public lands by invoking Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and rules of audi alteram partem. In the State of Andhra Pradesh in general, and cities like Hyderabad, Secunderabad, Ranga Reddy, Visakhapatnam, Guntur, East Godavari at Rajahmundry, Vijayawada, a large number of persons involved in grabbing public land and properties have got protection of ad-interim injunctions passed by the Civil Courts. Some of the judicial officers seem to be totally unmindful to the incalculable injury caused to public interest by grant of injunctions, which protect land grabbers and encroachers. Therefore, it is worthwhile to draw the attention of the members of the subordinate judiciary in the State to the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in Seema Arshad Zaheer Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai JT 2006 (11) SC 1. In that case, after a detailed survey of the judicial precedents on the subject, the Supreme Court unequivocally held that the Courts should not protect the possession of those who grab public lands or make encroachment without any semblance of right. The propositions laid down in that case read as under:

(3.) The aforementioned judgment reflects the Court's realization that undue insistence on the compliance of the rules of natural justice for protecting landgrabbers and encroachers of public land and property has only encouraged them to take law into their own hands. Therefore, it is imperative for the civil courts to be extremely circumspect in granting ad-interim injunctions in favour of the persons who come to the Court for protecting their unauthorized occupation of public land and properties. In all such cases, the Courts should exercise restraint. The Presiding Officers should take into consideration the element of public interest, apart from other three factors before passing an order of injunction. They should, as far as possible, avoid passing of ex parte order of injunction. I may hasten to add that this should not be construed as a mandate of the High Court not to pass any order of ex parte injunction in any situation.