Maharashtra Rajya Vadar Samaj Sangh Chairman Mukundrao S. Pawar vs Union of India Department of Mine Secretary, Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad Thane and Ors.

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 748 of 2016

Maharashtra Rajya Vadar Samaj Sangh .Appellant(S)

Versus

` Union of India & Ors. ..Respondent(S)

JUDGMENT

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