Pradeep Singh Bisht vs State of Uttarakhand
- SCC(2020) 15 SCC 372
- Neutral2019 INSC 779
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
A report from an Advocate-Commissioner appointed by the court indicating unauthorised construction is not, by itself, sufficient to support a High Court's conclusions directing eviction or removal of alleged encroachments; the High Court's directions must be supported by the documents on record. A statutory authority with power to take action against unauthorised construction under applicable statutes cannot rely on court directions to do so, but must exercise its own statutory powers in accordance with law.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Civil Appeal Nos. 5679-5680/2019 (arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 2685-2686/2015)
PRADEEP SINGH BISHT & ANR. Appellants
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY & ORS. Respondents
with
Civil Appeal Nos. 5681-5682/2019 (arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 2733-2734/2015) Civil Appeal Nos. 5683-5684/2019 (arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 2751-2752/2015)
O R D E R
Leave granted.
We have read and considered the order of the High Court impugned in the present appeals.
We have heard learned counsels for the parties.
On due consideration, we find that the High Court in coming to the impugned conclusions and in directing for eviction of the appellants/removal of alleged encroachments, had arrived at conclusions not supported by the documents on record. Merely because the report of the Advocate-Commissioners appointed by the Court had indicated that the appellants had raised unauthorised construction, the High Court could not have come to the Signature Not Verifiedimpugned conclusions and issued directions as stated Digitally signed by DEEPAK GUGLANI Date: 2019.08.29 above. We are equally surprised that the Municipal 16:39:09 IST Reason:
Corporation, which now support the order of the High Court, did not take any action in the matter and did not exericse its power under the Statutes. SLP(C) 2685-2686/2015 etc. 2
In the above circumstances, we allow the appeals set aside the order of the High Court and grant liberty to the Municipal Corporation to proceed in accordance with law, if so advised.
....................CJI [Ranjan Gogoi]
.....................J. [Deepak Gupta]
.....................J. [Aniruddha Bose]
New Delhi;
July 19, 2019.
SLP(C) 2685-2686/2015 etc. 3
ITEM NO.60 COURT NO.1 SECTION X
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos. 2685-2686/2015
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 15-01-2015 in CLMA Nos. 11205/2014 and 11206/2014 and CWP No. 31/2012 passed by the High Court Of Uttarakhand At Nainital)
PRADEEP SINGH BISHT & ANR. Petitioners
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY & ORS. Respondents
(IA No. 3/2015 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION)
WITH SLP(C) Nos. 2733-2734/2015 (X) SLP(C) Nos. 2751-2752/2015 (X) (APP FOR PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS ON IA 3/2015)
Date : 19-07-2019 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA BOSE
For Petitioner Ms. Ruchira Gupta, Adv. Ms. Mona Sinha, Adv.
Mr. Shishir Deshpande, AOR
Ms. Shashi Kiran, AOR Dr. Satish Chandra, Adv. Mr. Arjun Sain, Adv.
Mr. Manoj Jain, Adv.
Mr. Prabhoo Dayal Tiwari, Adv.
Ms. Surbhi Mehta, AOR
For Respondent Mr. Bahar U. Barqui, Adv. Mr. Aftab Ali Khan, AOR Mr. M.Z. Chaudhary, Adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar Kanva, Adv. Mr. Syed Mohammed Aatif, Adv. Mr. Ali Safeer Farooqi, Adv. SLP(C) 2685-2686/2015 etc. 4
Mr. Syed Imtiaz Ali, Adv.
Mr. Gopal Jha, Adv.
Mr. M. Rambabu, Adv.
Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR
Mr. Manish Kumar, Adv. Ms. Divya Roy, AOR
Mr. Abhishek Atrey, AOR
Mr. Jatinder Kumar Bhatia, AOR Mr. Tanmaya Agarwal, Adv.
Mr. Rahul Kaushik, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R
Leave granted.
The appeals are allowed in terms of the signed order.
Pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
(Deepak Guglani) (Anand Prakash) Court Master Court Master
(signed order is placed on the file)
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free