P&H HC: Eyewitness Account Not Credible if Eyewitness Directly Identifies Accused in Court  ||  Delhi HC: Conditions u/s 45 PMLA Have to Give Way to Article 21 When Accused Incarcerated for Long  ||  Delhi High Court: Delhi Police to Add Grounds of Arrest in Arrest Memo  ||  Kerala High Court: Giving Seniority on the Basis of Rules is a Policy Decision  ||  Del. HC: Where Arbitrator has Taken Plausible View, Court Cannot Interfere u/s 34 of A&C Act  ||  Ker. HC: No Question of Estoppel Against Party Where Error is Committed by Court Itself  ||  Supreme Court: Revenue Entries are Admissible as Evidence of Possession  ||  SC: Mere Breakup of Relationship Between Consenting Couple Can’t Result in Criminal Proceedings  ||  SC: Bar u/s 195 CrPC Not Attracted Where Proceedings Initiated Pursuant to Judicial Order  ||  NTF Gives Comprehensive Suggestions on Enhancing Better Working Conditions of Medical Professions    

Gulab Dass and Ors. v. State of H.P. and Ors. - (High Court of Himachal Pradesh) (08 Aug 2016)

Duty of Court to neutralize any unjust enrichment and undeserved gain made by litigants only on account of keeping litigation alive

MANU/HP/0769/2016

Land Acquisition

Respondent filed complaints against Petitioners before the Competent Authority on allegation that, Petitioners had encroached upon Government land in Muhal Prini by planting apple trees. Main defence raised by Petitioners before authorities below was that, they had become owners by adverse possession. However, this plea was negated by both authorities below compelling Petitioners to file instant Petitions.

Private interest must yield to public interest. Right and title of the State cannot be permitted to be destroyed so as to give an upper hand to the encroachers, unauthorized occupants or land grabbers as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mandal Revenue Officer vs. Goundla Venkaiah and another. Petitioners were rank-encroachers and after making large scale encroachments had protracted litigation and thereby turned the same into a fruitful industry, by succeeding in protecting their illegal possession and reaping the usufruct out of land, which as per their own admission comprises of apple orchard. This illegal possession cannot be permitted to continue.

State is under obligation to safeguard and compensate not only the victims of pollution but also liable to compensate for adverse effects of an environmental damage. The 'Polluters Pays Principle' as interpreted by Hon'ble Supreme Court means that, absolute liability for harm to environment extends not only to compensate the victims of pollution but also the cost of restoring the environmental degradation. 'Polluter Pays Principle' can appropriately be applied to the cases of encroachers because it is the injury caused by each of occupier/encroacher to the pristine forest wealth and is, therefore, liable to compensate for the same.

Forest land cannot be put to use for any non-forest purpose but for facts already set out, it would reveal that there would be environmental degradation in using the forest for non-forest purposes by the occupier/encroacher affecting the environmental equilibrium. Activities of occupiers/encroachers in forest land for last so many years has had its antagonistic effectiveness in the environmental premise. Therefore, all those responsible for environmental degradation cannot be exculpated. High Court during dismissing the Petition held that, It is duty of this Court to neutralize any unjust enrichment and undeserved gain made by litigants only on account of keeping litigation alive.

Relevant : Mandal Revenue Officer vs. Goundla Venkaiah and another, (2010) 2 SCC 461 : MANU/SC/0026/2010

Tags : GOVERNMENT LAND   ENCROACHMENT   UNJUST ENRICHMENT  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2024 - All Rights Reserved