Punjab and Haryana High Court fines man for ‘frivolous’ Gurgaon encroachment plea

The case stemmed from allegations of deliberate disobedience of a 2008 Division Bench directive to municipal corporations and the Haryana government to remove encroachments on public lands and prevent future land grabs.

Sharma’s petition claimed violations in “eviction against the illegal/unauthorized encroachment over the passage comprised in Khasra No.47 of the village Dhana, District Gurugram.” However, the court noted a lack of specific averments regarding the area or extent of the alleged encroachments, describing the language as “very vague.”

In her order, Justice Sharma observed that there was no specific averment regarding the specific area or extent of land where there was illegal encroachment. She further held that the petitioner had “misconstrued or failed to properly comprehend the directions issued by the Hon’ble Division Bench,” which allows public-spirited individuals to initiate contempt proceedings only against those allowing or conniving in encroachments.

This misunderstanding, the court said, led to “vague and unsubstantiated allegations, lacking clarity as to the actual breach of the said direction, thereby prolonging the proceedings without just cause.”

The 2008 order, quoted extensively in the judgment, emphasised preventing encroachments on public properties.

It directed the state to formulate policies for government institutions encroaching on public lands, made absolute restraints on regularizing unauthorized constructions (except for public institutions), and ordered municipal corporations to remove encroachments within six months. Key directions included constituting enforcement and monitoring committees, locating encroachment-prone areas, and involving public participation through vigilance committees.

Respondents, including Arun Kumar Gupta, IAS, and officials from the Municipal Corporation of Manesar, Gurgaon, submitted two affidavits detailing the actions taken. The first, filed by Commissioner Yash Pal on April 20, 2023, noted that show-cause notices were issued to encroachers, followed by demolition orders under Section 408A of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1994, on April 17, 2023. It added:

The second affidavit, by Joint Commissioner Dinesh on December 1, 2023, explained delays due to air quality restrictions under the Graded Response Action Plan (GRAP).

The court found the petitioner’s claims unconvincing. “It is also observed that while the petitioner has attempted to project the matter as one involving public interest, the proceedings reveal an absence of bona fide intent, rendering the petition devoid of any genuine public spirit,” it observed.

Justice Sharma termed the case a “gross abuse of judicial process” that contributes to the “burgeoning pendency of cases” before the court.

Citing a series of judgments, Justice Sharma concluded “that the instant petition constitutes a glaring instance of misuse of the judicial process. It is, therefore, incumbent upon this court to safeguard the sanctity of judicial proceedings and to prevent their exploitation by unscrupulous litigants.”

The petition was dismissed with costs of Rs 50,000 to be deposited within two months into the Punjab Chief Minister Relief Fund. In case of default, the amount would be recovered as arrears of land revenue.

From the homepage

‘No idea what awaits us’: Amid Nepal crisis, hundreds of Kailash Mansarovar pilgrims stuck in Tibet seek MEA help to return

Cracks in BJP-AIADMK alliance again as Delhi ‘hand’ seen in bids to rock EPS

2 decades after Hizbul commander escaped to Pakistan, J&K probe agency tries to bring investigation back to life