SATISH KUMAR VERMA Vs. R C SAHNI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard the parties.

(2.) It is submitted by Shri Gulshan Bhamra, Collector, Jabalpur that as per programme of the Railway, the local administration is ready to provide help to the Railway for removal of the encroachment. The Superintendent of Police, Jabalpur Shri Santosh Kumar Singh submitted that the police are also ready to provide adequate help to the Railway for removal of the encroachment as per schedule. Shri Bhamra, Collector, Jabalpur submitted that as per policy of the State, some alternative place is to be provided by the Railway to the persons displaced from encroachment. It is further submitted by him that nearabout 1100 families will be displaced and if for a period of one week, an arrangement of ration, etc. is made to the aforesaid families,, it will be appropriate for the local administration to meet out the situation. It is also brought to our notice that as per policy of the State, an amount of Rs. 5,000/- for eaach family is to be provided for immediate help for food, shifting, etc. to such families.

(3.) Aforesaid prayer is opposed by the petitioner Satish Kumar Verma who submitted that the encroachers are not entitled for any alternative place for their residence. Apart from this, they are also not entitled for any compensation. He has placed reliance to the apex Court judgments in Almitra H. Patel v. Union of India, 2000 2 SCC 679, and Delhi development Authority v. Joint Action Committee, Allottee of SFS Flats, 2008 2 SCC 672, in support of his contention. He has also drawn our attention to an order passed in M.C.C. No. 1587/07 dated 10.8.2007 by which encroachers were allowed time upto 30.9.2007, on filing an undertaking, to vacate the land under encroachment. Referring aforesaid, it was submitted by him that an order be passed against the authorities to remove the encroachment in compliance of the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 3/2007 dated 12.3.2007.