Supreme Court quashes High Court order to legalize encroachment on school land: State of Haryana vs. Satpal (2023)

Date of the Judgment: March 03, 2023
Citation: (2023) INSC 177
Judges: M.R. Shah, J. and B.V. Nagarathna, J.
Can a High Court direct the regularization of unauthorized occupation of land reserved for a school and playground? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case where the High Court of Punjab and Haryana had ordered the Gram Panchayat to consider regularizing encroachments on land designated for a school. This judgment clarifies the limits of judicial intervention in such matters, emphasizing the importance of protecting public land for its intended purpose. The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, delivered the judgment, with Justice M.R. Shah authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The case revolves around unauthorized occupation of land belonging to the Gram Panchayat in the village of Magharpur, Haryana. The land, comprising Khasra Nos. 61/2 and 62, was designated for a school and playground. The respondents, Satpal and others, were found to be in illegal possession of this land. On 25.03.2009, the Gram Panchayat initiated eviction proceedings under Section 7(2) of the Punjab Village Common Land (Regulation) Act. The Assistant Collector passed an ejectment order on 30.08.2011, which was upheld by the Collector on 02.05.2012 and the Commissioner on 04.07.2014. The respondents then filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana challenging these orders.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The High Court, during the preliminary hearing on 23.02.2015, was informed that the encroached land was part of the school premises. The respondents offered to exchange the land with an equivalent vacant plot from Khasra No. 63. The High Court then appointed a Local Commissioner to conduct a fresh demarcation. The commissioner’s report confirmed the unauthorized possession by the respondents. Subsequently, the respondents offered to either give double the encroached land or pay its market price. The High Court, on 12.05.2016, directed the Gram Panchayat to consider the claims of the encroachers and explore regularization under Rule 12 of the Punjab Village Common Land (Regulation) Rules, 1964. The High Court also suggested that the Gram Panchayat could sell the land to the encroachers at the collector rate, provided they had constructed houses before 31st March, 2000, and did not own another residential house. A review application was dismissed on 21.10.2016. The State of Haryana then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case primarily involves the interpretation and application of the Punjab Village Common Land (Regulation) Act and the Punjab Village Common Land (Regulation) Rules, 1964. Specifically, Section 7(2) of the Act provides for the eviction of unauthorized occupants from village common land. Rule 12 of the Rules allows the Gram Panchayat, with prior approval from the State Government, to sell non-cultivable land in Shamlat Deh to inhabitants of the village who have constructed houses on or before 31st March, 2000, subject to certain conditions. The High Court had directed the parties to invoke powers under Rule 12 to determine the market value of the occupied land.

The relevant part of Rule 12 of the Punjab Village Common Land (Regulation) Rules, 1964 is as follows:
“12. Sale of land by Panchayat.—A Panchayat may, with the prior approval of the Government, sell its non-cultivable land in Shamlat Deh to the inhabitants of the village, who have constructed their houses on or before 31st March, 2000, provided that they do not have any residential house and further provided that the constructed area or an appurtenant area upto a maximum of 200 sq. yards. The said lands shall be sold at not less than the Collector rate, i.e., floor rate or market rate, whichever is higher.”

Arguments

The State of Haryana argued that the High Court erred in directing the regularization of unauthorized occupation on land reserved for a school and playground. They contended that such directions undermine the public interest and the purpose of reserving the land for educational purposes. The State also argued that the directions issued by the High Court were not capable of being implemented due to the nature of the encroachments and the lack of available alternative land.

The respondents, on the other hand, argued that they were willing to either exchange the land or pay its market value, as directed by the High Court. They emphasized that they had been residing on the land for a long time and that the High Court’s directions were a reasonable solution to the issue.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section, but the core issue was:

✓ Whether the High Court was justified in directing the Gram Panchayat to consider regularizing the unauthorized occupation of land reserved for a school and playground.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court did not cite any specific cases or books in this judgment. However, the Court considered the following legal provisions:

• Section 7(2) of the Punjab Village Common Land (Regulation) Act: This provision empowers the authorities to initiate eviction proceedings against unauthorized occupants of village common land.
• Rule 12 of the Punjab Village Common Land (Regulation) Rules, 1964: This rule allows the Gram Panchayat to sell non-cultivable land to certain inhabitants under specific conditions, with prior approval of the government.

Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals filed by the State of Haryana and quashed the High Court’s order. The Court held that the High Court had committed a serious error in directing the regularization of unauthorized occupation on land reserved for a school and playground. The Court emphasized that the land was meant for a public purpose and could not be diverted for private use. The Court also found that the directions issued by the High Court were not capable of being implemented due to the nature of the encroachments and the lack of alternative land.

How each authority was viewed by the Court:

✓ The Court noted that Section 7(2) of the Punjab Village Common Land (Regulation) Act* was correctly invoked by the authorities to initiate eviction proceedings against the respondents.

✓ The Court held that the High Court erred in directing the Gram Panchayat to invoke Rule 12 of the Punjab Village Common Land (Regulation) Rules, 1964* to regularize the unauthorized occupation, as it was not applicable to the present case.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to protect public land and ensure its use for the intended purpose. The Court emphasized that land reserved for a school and playground is essential for the community’s welfare and cannot be diverted for private use. The Court also considered the practical difficulties in implementing the High Court’s directions, given the nature of the encroachments and the lack of alternative land. The Court’s reasoning was also influenced by the fact that the school had no playground and that the unauthorized constructions were hampering the school’s functioning.

The court’s reasoning included the following key points:

✓ The land in question was specifically reserved for a school and playground, which are essential for public welfare. “There cannot be any school without playground. Even the students, who study in such a school are entitled to a good environment.”

✓ The High Court’s directions to regularize the unauthorized occupation were not feasible due to the nature of the encroachments and the lack of alternative land. “The unauthorized construction is in such a manner and even some areas are not used for residential purpose and some of the area is covered by vegetation and therefore, it is not possible to segregate and separate the same, which can be used for school premises.”

✓ The High Court’s order undermines the purpose of reserving the land for educational purposes. “Under the circumstances, the High Court has committed a very serious error in directing to legalise the unauthorized occupation and possession made by the original writ petitioners on payment of market price.”

The Supreme Court granted the respondents 12 months to vacate the land, after which the authorities were directed to remove the unauthorized occupation.

Key Takeaways

• Unauthorized occupation of public land, especially land reserved for public purposes like schools and playgrounds, cannot be legalized.
• High Courts should not issue directions that undermine the public interest or are not practically implementable.
• Land reserved for schools and playgrounds must be protected for their intended use.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the original writ petitioners to vacate the encroached land within 12 months. If they fail to do so, the appropriate authority is directed to remove their unauthorized and illegal occupation.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that unauthorized occupation of land reserved for public purposes cannot be legalized, and the High Courts should not issue directions that undermine the public interest. This judgment reinforces the principle of protecting public land for its intended use and clarifies the limits of judicial intervention in such matters. There is no change in the previous position of law, but the judgment clarifies the application of existing law in cases of encroachment on public land.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in State of Haryana vs. Satpal is a significant judgment that emphasizes the importance of protecting public land for its intended purpose. The Court rightly quashed the High Court’s order, which had sought to regularize unauthorized occupation on land reserved for a school and playground. This judgment serves as a reminder that public interest must be prioritized over private interests, especially when it comes to land reserved for essential public services.