Miss Lucy
← All judgments

State Of Maharashtra vs Alka B Hingde

Supreme Court17 April 1998G.T. Nanavati · S.P. Kurdukar

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

When a court directs removal of encroachments from land occupied by hutment dwellers or other persons with no alternative shelter, the court must give directions that are reasonable in scope and duration, having regard to the humanitarian consequences and potential law and order problems of hasty removal, rather than imposing arbitrary time limits that do not account for practical constraints and human welfare considerations.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

PETITIONER:STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Vs.
RESPONDENT:ALKA B HINGDE
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 17/04/1998
BENCH:G.T. NANAVATI, S.P. KURDUKAR
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:

J U D G M E N T NANAVATI Leave granted. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The appellant-State is challenging in this appeal the interim order passed by the High Court in writ petition No. 2029/97. By the said order the High Court directed the Collector to remove encroachments and report compliance within 72 hours. It was submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the State that considering the large number of persons on the land and the fact that they are all hutmen dwellers it is not possible to remove them as directed by the Court within 72 hours and therefore the direction given by the High Court should be quashed as it is unreasonable. We find considerable substance in this contention. It should have been appreciated that high handed removal of such persons would not only create a law and order problem but also a humanitarian problem as they have no other place to stay. In such cases the court should be more careful and reasonable while giving directions to the authorities. It was not possible for Mr. U.U. Lalit to support this order and the only submission which he could make was that the Collector should have been directed to remove encroachments within some reasonable time. The impugned order of the High Court is, therefore, set aside, we, direct the Government and its officers to decide as early as possible whether the land is to be restored to the respondent or it intends to put it to any other public purpose. In case it is not required by the State for any other public purpose then the Government and its officers are directed to take steps for removing the encroachments within reasonable time.

The appeal is allowed accordingly. The order of the High Court stands modified to that extent. No order as to costs.

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