***

AJAY MOHAN GOEL, J. (ORAL) –

Notice confined to respondents No. 1 to 5. Mr. Rajat Chauhan, learned Assistant Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 5.

2. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:-

“I. Respondents No. 1 to 5 may kindly be directed to take immediate appropriate action against respondent No.6 in accordance with law so that he and his musclemen are not able to threaten and terrorise the petitioners and other slum dwellers of village Bhatanwali (129), Bata mandi and village Ghutanpur. (Block No.96) Tehsil Poanta Sahib, Distt. Sirmour (HP).

II. Respondents may kindly be directed to ensure that the petitioners and other slum dwellers of village Bhatanwali (129) Bata mandi and village Ghutanpur (Block No. 96) Tehsil Poanta Sahib, Distt. Sirmour (HP) are not forcibly evicted or their houses and hutments are not forcibly demolished save and except in accordance with law and only by following due and fair process and procedure established by law.

III. That respondents No.1 to 3 may further kindly be directed to ensure re-habilitation and re-settlement of the petitioners and other slum-dwellers of the area in-case it becomes absolutely necessary for their eviction and re-rolation at any point of time so that they and their family and children do not suffer deprivation and unemployment leading to denial of their right to livelihood.”

3. In terms of the averments made in the writ petition, the petitioners are residents of adjoining villages under Tehsil Poanta Sahib and their villages/slums are stated to be under Gram Panchayat Patliyon, Development Block Poanta Sahib. The petitioners state that they are residing in slum settlement for the last 50 years peacefully. According to them, the actual owner of the entire land, over which, the petitioners and other slum dwellers have constructed their houses, temple and other structures, is from Uttar Pradesh and though, he had objected to the occupation over his land and dwelling of houses from time to time, however, the petitioners have been in possession of the same, which possession of theirs is continuous, peaceful and open for the last more than 60 years.

4. To cut the controversy short, according to the petitioners, respondent No. 6 is interfering in their peaceful possession over the said land, who poses himself as a property dealer, but who in fact, is a notorious land mafia. As per the petitioner, respondent No. 6 and his henchman were resisted by the slum dwellers when they tried to interfere in their peaceful possession but they threatened the slum dwellers with serious consequences that next time they will come with JCB machines. In this backdrop, the petitioners have approached this Court praying for the reliefs already enumerated hereinabove.

5. Having heard learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners and having perused the averments made in the writ petition as well as documents appended therewith, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioners cannot be granted the relief as is being prayed for by them under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and their remedy is before the Civil Court. This is for the reason that it is not as if the petitioners have constructed their dwellings etc. upon the government land and the government authorities are now intending to take action to dispossess them. It is the own case of the petitioners that the land upon which they are residing, is owned by a private individual from Uttar Pradesh and the tone and tenor of the pleadings suggest that the petitioners are claiming that they have perfected their title over the land in question by way of adverse possession. All these pleadings are in the realm of Civil Court and if the owner of the land or some other person, may be at his behest or otherwise, is trying to disturb their possession, as is alleged, the petitioner can always go to the Civil Court and seek appropriate reliefs including police assistance.

6. Reliance placed by learned Senior Counsel on the Constitutional Bench Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Olga Tellis and others Vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation and others, AIR 1986 SCC 180, in the considered view of this Court is of no assistance in the peculiar facts of this case for the reason that therein the Hon’ble Supreme Court was dealing with the issue of pavement dwellers, who were occupying the property of the Bombay Municipal Corporation, but herein the property, as has been spelled out by the petitioners, is a private property. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that in such like situations, if the power vested in this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is permitted to be invoked, then tomorrow every person, who is encroacher upon the private land and is facing resistance from owner etc., will come to the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and press for issuance of directions, as have been prayed for in this petition.

7. Accordingly, in view of above discussion, as the present petition is not maintainable, the same is dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to approach the Civil Court for the redressal of their grievance, if so advised.

The writ petition is disposed of in above terms, so also pending miscellaneous applications, if any.

Petition dismissed.

********