Full Judgment Text
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 748 of 2016
Maharashtra Rajya Vadar Samaj Sangh .Appellant(S)
Versus
`
Union of India & Ors. ..Respondent(S)
J U D G M E N T
M. R. Shah, J.
1. By way of this writ petition under Article 32 of the
Constitution of India petitioner has prayed for an
appropriate writ direction and/or order to quash and
set aside the Government Resolution dated 12.07.2011
passed by the Revenue and Forest Department,
Government of State of Maharashtra.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Neetu Sachdeva
Date: 2022.11.24
12:53:49 IST
Reason:
1
2. At the outset it is required to be noted that considering
the directions issued by this Court in the case of
Jagpal Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Punjab and Ors.;
(2011) 11 SCC 396, the State of Maharashtra has
issued the impugned Government Resolution dated
12.07.2011 under which a decision is taken that the
encroachments or unauthorized construction on
barren land/grassy land and on the common village
land may be removed immediately and proceeding may
be started through local Gram Panchayat, Municipal
Council, Nagar Parishad etc., by preparing special
program. It is further resolved that henceforth the
barren land or land utilized for public only may be
considered only if non-availability of other lands for
public utility and public purpose run by the various
Departments of Central and State Governments and
that the barren lands/grassy lands or the land under
utilization of the villagers shall not be approved to any
2
person, private institute, organization for any
motive/purpose.
2.1 In the case of Jagpal Singh (supra) this Court issued
the directions to protect the barren lands/grassy lands
to be utilized for cattle to be used for public only. This
Court directed to all the State Governments in the
country that they should prepare schemes for eviction
of illegal/unauthorized occupants of the Gram
Sabha/Gram Panchayat/poramboke/ shamlat land
and these must be restored to the Gram Sabha/Gram
Panchayat for the common use of villagers of the
village. The Chief Secretaries of all the State
Governments were directed to do the needful. In line
with the said directions the State of Maharashtra has
issued the impugned resolution.
3. It is the case on behalf of the petitioner that the
petitioner is established for the welfare of “Vadar”
community within the State of Maharashtra. It is the
3
case on behalf of the petitioner that Vadar community
has been notified as Nomadic Tribe by the State
Government and whose ancestor family profession is
stone crushing, removing stone, etc. That in exercise of
powers conferred under Section 15 of the Mines and
Minerals (Development and Regulation) (MMDR) Act,
1957, the State of Maharashtra has framed the Rules
titled as the Maharashtra Land Revenue (Extraction
and Removal of Minor Minerals) Rules, 1968
(hereinafter referred to as the Rules, 1968). As per
Rule 4A, family of Vadar community can remove stone
up to 200 brass annually by stone crushing by hand,
without payment of any fee or royalty, however, with
the previous permission and writing of the Collector or
Additional Collector as the case may be, from any
private land or un-assessed Government waste land
not assigned for special purposes under Section 22 of
the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966.
4
3.1 It is the case on behalf of the petitioner that the family
of the Vadar communities were granted
lease/permission for mining which were renewed from
time to time. It is the case on behalf of the petitioner
that however, on misreading and/or mis-interpretation
of the decision of this Court in the case of Jagpal
Singh (supra) and in view of the impugned
Government Resolution dated 12.07.2011, the family
of Vadar community are not granted any lease and/or
the lease are not renewed. Therefore, it is the case on
behalf of the petitioner that the impugned Government
Resolution takes away the right available to the family
of the Vadar community conferred under Rule 4A of
the Rules, 1968.
4. Having heard Shri Vijay Kumar, learned Senior
Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Shri
Sanjay Kharde, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the respondent – State and having gone through and
considered the impugned Government Resolution read
5
with Rule 4A of the Rules, 1968, we are of the opinion
that the impugned Government Resolution cannot be
said to be illegal and/or taking away any of the rights
conferred upon the family of the Vadar community
conferred under Rule 4A of the Rules, 1968. The
impugned Government Resolution dated 12.07.2011 is
absolutely in consonance with the directions issued by
this Court in the case of Jagpal Singh (supra)
contained in para 23. Para 23 of the decision in the
case of Jagpal Singh (supra) reads as under: -
“23. Before parting with this case we give
directions to all the State Governments in the
country that they should prepare schemes for
eviction of illegal/unauthorised occupants of the
Gram Sabha/Gram
Panchayat/poramboke/shamlat land and these
must be restored to the Gram Sabha/Gram
Panchayat for the common use of villagers of the
village. For this purpose the Chief Secretaries of
all State Governments/Union Territories in India
are directed to do the needful, taking the help of
other senior officers of the Governments. The said
scheme should provide for the speedy eviction of
such illegal occupant, after giving him a show-
cause notice and a brief hearing. Long duration of
such illegal occupation or huge expenditure in
making constructions thereon or political
connections must not be treated as a justification
for condoning this illegal act or for regularising the
illegal possession. Regularisation should only be
6
permitted in exceptional cases e.g. where lease has
been granted under some government notification
to landless labourers or members of the Scheduled
Castes/Scheduled Tribes, or where there is
already a school, dispensary or other public utility
on the land.”
4.1 If the impugned Government Resolution is seen, it is
specifically with respect to the barren lands/grassy
lands belonging to the Gram Sabha/Gram Panchayat
and/or the Government’s barren lands and grassy
lands to be used for public utilization and to be used
for public only.
4.2 So far as the reliance placed upon the Rule 4A of the
Rules, 1968 is concerned, on a fair reading of Rule 4A
it provides that the family of Vadar community for the
purpose of its traditional profession of stone crushing
by hand can remove stone up to 200 brass annually,
from any private land or un-assessed Government
waste not assigned for special purposes under Section
22 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966,
without payment of any fee or royalty, however, with
the previous permission and writing of the Collector or
7
Additional Collector as the case may be. However, the
same shall not be applicable with respect to the barren
lands or the grassy lands, any village lands owned by
the Gram Panchayat/Gram Sabha and/or the
Government or any un-utilized Government land to be
used for public utility or the land under utilization of
the villagers. Rule 4A also does not provide for any
lease of barren/grassy lands belonging to the Gram
Sabha/Gram Panchayat. The object and purpose of
Rule 4A would be permitting the family of Vadar
community to continue their traditional profession of
stone crushing by hand by extracting the stone up to
200 brass annually without payment of any fee or
royalty. The Rule 4A is not meant for the lease for
commercial use. Therefore, we are of the opinion that
the impugned Government Resolution dated
12.07.2011 cannot be said to be illegal as sought to be
canvassed on behalf of the petitioner. If any lease is
not renewed in individual case and/or any action is
8
taken against individual and if any person is aggrieved,
he can take recourse to law. By no stretch of
imagination, the impugned Government Resolution
which according to us is in consonance with the
directions issued by this Court in the case of Jagpal
Singh (supra) cannot be said to be illegal.
5. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above
subject to observations made hereinabove, the present
writ petition stands dismissed/disposed of.
…………………………………J.
(M. R. SHAH)
…………………………………J.
(M.M. SUNDRESH)
NEW DELHI,
NOVEMBER 24, 2022.
9