New Delhi: The Supreme Court Monday directed Haryana and the Faridabad
municipal corporation to remove “all encroachments”, consisting around 10,000
residential construction, in Aravalli forest area near a village, saying “land
grabbers cannot take refuge of rule of law” and talk of “fairness”.
A
vacation bench of justices A M Khanwilkar and Dinesh Maheshwari sought a
compliance report from the state government’s officials after removing all
encroachments from forest land near Lakarpur Khori village in Faridabad district
within six weeks.
“In
our opinion, the petitioners are bound by the directions given by the Punjab
and Haryana High Court and the Supreme Court in orders..,” the bench said in
the order and made clear that the state government may consider the plea of rehabilitation
independently.
“Therefore
we reiterate our directions given to the state and the Faridabad Municipal
Corporation and expect that the corporation will remove all encroachments on
forest land not later than 6 weeks and report compliance..,” the bench ordered
after hearing a plea filed by five alleged encroachers led by one Sarina Sarkar
against the demolition drive of the civic body.
The
top court, in a hearing conducted via video conferencing, directed that the
Deputy Commissioner of Police of Faridabad will be responsible for providing
police protection to the civic body officials in the demolition drive.
The
bench made clear that the compliance of earlier orders, asking removal of
encroachments from forest land, would be verified by it.
During
the hearing, the bench took note of the submission that the illegal dwellers
have no place to go and the state be directed to rehabilitate them before their
eviction, saying the “land grabbers cannot take refuge in the rule of law” and
talk of “fairness”.
“Let
the people be accommodated as soon as they are evicted,” senior advocate Colin
Gonsalves, appearing for petitioners, said.
“Who
is asking this? Land grabbers! When you come to court you become honest and
law-abiding and on-site, you do not do anything lawful,” the bench observed.
In
the first round of litigation, we were unable to get a favourable order for
getting the demolition stopped, Colin Gonsalves said, adding, “People should be
rehabilitated and the right to housing cannot be denied.”
“We
had passed an interim order in February 2020 and since it is an encroachment of
forest land, it has to be vacated and if in future, the state government wants
to accommodate you that is up to the state,” the bench observed.
The
bench said that it would be asking the civic body, as to why the encroachments
have not been removed despite its February, 2020 order on it.
So
far as forest land is concerned, there was no question of compromise
irrespective of the policy, the bench said.
“Why
have they not been removed,” the bench asked the counsel appearing for Haryana
after he replied affirmatively to the query whether the petitioners were living
on forest land.
“First
forest land has to be cleared. No concession with regard to the forest land. Do
not give us Covid excuses. File a compliance report,” it said, adding that it
may be a case where some are in “hand in glove” with encroachers.
“Demolition
is taking place,” the counsel for the state said.
The
bench asked Colin Gonsalves to advise petitioners to vacate the land on their
own; otherwise, the state and the municipal corporation will clear the land.
“When
you come here Colin Gonsalves, you speak of rule of law, is this rule of law.
You grab forest land and then you ask a policy to be formulated,” the bench
said.
The bench said it was not dismissing the petition and kept it
pending because it wanted its order to be complied with.
___________