Citizens got no right to occupy public land, but authorities must follow fair procedure for eviction: Supreme Court

New Delhi: The Supreme Court has said that a citizen has no right to encroach on public land but the state authorities have to follow the minimum safeguard of following a fair procedure in ordering unauthorised occupants.

"If indeed any citizen has encroached public land and such encroachment is not otherwise entitled to be regularised under any law, a citizen has no right to sit on public land. In such a case, the minimum safeguard that is required of the State while ordering the eviction of an alleged unauthorised occupant is to follow a fair procedure," a bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Prashant Kumar Mishra said.

The court was dealing with a batch of appeals filed by Babu Ram and others against the Himachal Pradesh High Court's decisions which declined to interfere with orders of eviction passed against them by the district collector for being unauthorised occupants of forest land.

The bench, however, noted the order of the Collector does not meet the standards of a speaking order that could be regarded as valid.

The court held that there is no reason, far less cogent and tenable reason, appearing on the face of the order of the Collector.

The bench said adverting to the materials on record showing the application of mind was the minimum which was required of the Collector while he proceeded to adjudicate proceedings, though administrative, but was obliged to act quasi-judicially.

"The order, without a doubt, is clearly in breach of principles of natural justice and principles of fairness in administrative action," the bench said.

It noted the order of the Divisional Commissioner fares no better in the case. The order of the Collector falls totally short of being a “speaking order” and the finding of the Commissioner is clearly indefensible, the court said.

"We are a little surprised that these infirmities in the original order of eviction as well as the appellate order went unnoticed by the High Court. Reasonable and adequate opportunity of defence not having been extended, we have not the slightest hesitation to set aside the original order of eviction, the appellate order and the order of the High Court dismissing the writ petition," the bench said.

In its decision on November 28, the court directed the state government, through its appropriate department, to undertake an appropriate exercise for the demarcation of forest land upon written notice to the appellants and complete the exercise as early as possible, preferably within two months.

The bench underscored in such cases proper procedure which would, inter alia, include a proper exercise conducted for demarcation of the land in the presence of the party, likely to be affected if an order of eviction were passed, and a proper show cause notice under section 4 of the Himachal Pradesh Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1971 indicating the grounds on which action is proposed, which must be served together with any document that the State desires to rely on during the course of the eviction proceedings.

Besides, the court said, the authorities must give a just and proper consideration of the response of the noticee to the show cause notice, a sufficient opportunity to lead evidence, and application of mind to all the materials on record leading to an order of eviction, if at all, it is required to be passed.

If an appeal is preferred, it is needless to observe that the provisions of the 1971 Act governing the disposal of such appeals also need to be adhered to strictly apart from natural justice principles, the court said.