The Madhya Pradesh High Court has ordered the parties to maintain status quo till October 22 on a matter related to land encroachment by the residents of Lama Garden Awas Yojana, Jabalpur.
A Single-Judge Bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan observed on October 11 that the petitioners have allegedly been in unlawful possession of the said properties in question for more than one-and-a-half years. Prima-facie it appears that action has been taken belatedly and the impugned notices have been issued in the month of September, 2021 and action is sought to be taken against the petitioners during the period when the Court is on vacation.
“Under the circumstances, till the next date of hearing, status quo as it exists today, shall be maintained by the parties and no further action shall be taken against the petitioners. However, this order does not prevent the respondent/Corporation from going ahead with the process of identifying appropriate and legitimate allottees to the properties in question by way of draw of lots,” noted the Court.
A petition was filed in the High Court by Mohd Vahid and others, challenging the notice issued to them by the Municipal Corporation of Jabalpur on September 8, 2021, directing them to vacate the premises within seven days of receipt of the notice, as according to the Corporation, the premises was under illegal occupation of the petitioners.
The Court noted that the first document was brought before it on January 11, 2021, which was an order passed by the Jabalpur Collector, directing constitution of a three-member Committee to identify the encroachers of the properties in question. On January 14, the Additional Collector of Jabalpur asked the Committee to expeditiously prepare a list of persons who are in unlawful possession of the dwelling places in question.
The Bench observed that by the letter of the Additional Collector issued on January 27, it becomes clear that on that date itself, the list of unlawful occupants of the properties in question was already prepared.
The Court asked the Counsel for the State as to why there was delay in issuing these notices to the petitioners, to which the Counsel was not able to give a clear answer. The Court then ordered maintenance of status quo and listed the matter on October 22 in “Top of the List as Item No 1”.