Spare some place at least, says SC on encroachment in hospital premises

The Supreme Court Tuesday dismissed a plea against an order passed by the Telangana High Court in a matter relating to encroachment inside the premises of a government mental hospital.

“Inside the mental hospital, you people have constructed houses. Spare some place at least,” observed a vacation bench of Justices Surya Kant and J B Pardiwala.

The bench was hearing a petition against the June 14 order of the high court which had dismissed a plea seeking to quash the order passed in April by the Tahsildar and executive magistrate, Ameerpet Tahsil, for vacating the land in question.

While dismissing the plea against the high court order, it observed that the lives of inmates of the hospital cannot be made miserable.

The apex court granted two months to the petitioners to vacate the encroached land subject to their giving an undertaking before the high court that they shall hand over peaceful possession of the property within two months.

“The petitioners, however, are granted two months to vacate the encroached land/property subject to their giving undertaking before the high court within one week that they shall hand over the peaceful vacant possession of the encroached property on expiry of the said period of two months,” the bench said.

During the hearing, the top court observed that the petitioners do not have the title, lease deed, or any legal document to show valid possession of the land in question.

“We refuse to interfere with the impugned order of the high court,” the bench said.

The counsel appearing for the petitioners urged the bench that some time be granted to vacate the land as around 45 families are living there for the last several years.

In its order, the high court had noted that the counsel appearing for the state had argued that inside the boundary of the hospital, the petitioners had constructed small houses and they were encroachers.

The high court had also noted that as per the counsel, the inmates of the hospital were forced to be locked inside the ward and they cannot move freely in the vicinity of the hospital.

The lawyer appearing for the petitioners had contended before the high court that a late Nawab was the absolute owner of the property and the land was later handed over to the government of Hyderabad which paid rentals to the Nawab and subsequently, to his son.

The high court had noted that it was stated by the petitioners that various departments had entered into lease deeds with the landlords and in part of the said land, the government mental hospital was constructed with a boundary wall.

It had observed that the impugned order was passed by the competent authority after hearing the petitioners.

“In the considered opinion of this court, the petitioners, as they do not have title over the property in question, as they have not produced any document establishing their title to the property and as they have not furnished any judgement and decree passed in their favour, are not entitled to any relief whatsoever kind,” the high court had said in its order.