Jagan Lal vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others

Ramesh Ranganathan, CJ

This appeal is preferred against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in WPMS No. 2356 of 2019 dated 13.11.2019. The appellant herein

filed WPMS No. 2356 of 2019 seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to strike down, from the voter list, voters of Village Sarpura

who are residing in the forest village Bagga 54, and separate the forest village Bagga 54 from the revenue village of Sarpura; and not to include the

voters of forest village Bagga 54 in the village panchayat Sarpura.

The appellant-writ petitioner relies on an order passed by a Division Bench of this Court, in WPPIL No.106 of 2015 dated 7.09.2018, whereby the

prescribed authority, under the Uttar Pradesh Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred as “the Act,

1972), was directed to conclude proceedings within a period of two months. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and District Magistrate,

Udham Singh Nagar were directed to take all steps necessary for removal of persons, who had illegally encroached upon Government land, and

against whom no proceedings were pending, in accordance with law within a period of three months. These directions were issued on the basis of the

submission of the learned Deputy Advocate General that 671 Hectares of land of village Bagga 54 had been encroached upon; this land was in a

reserve forest declared as such under Section 20 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927; and proceedings under the Act, 1972, as adopted by the State of

Uttarakhand, is still pending.

Aggrieved by the said order, the affected parties therein invoked the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court by filing Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary

No.40182/2018 and by its order dated 22.11.2018, the Supreme Court granted stay of the order of the High Court in so far as the petitioners therein

were concerned. The petitioner claims that, since the order of the Supreme Court granting stay of the order of the High Court was confined only to

the petitioners therein, the order of the Division Bench continues to remain in force with respect to all others; and, since all these encroachers are

required to be evicted from the limits of the village, the directions which the petitioner seeks is that their names should also be excluded from the

electoral rolls of the subject village, as they are not residents of the village and are mere encroachers.

In the order under appeal, the learned Single Judge observed that, since the contentions raised in the writ petition were similar to those raised in the

Public Interest Litigation in which orders were passed by a Division Bench of this Court, it would not be proper for this Court to interfere in the

matter; however, the petitioner was at liberty to approach the Division Bench; and disposal / dismissal of the petition would not prejudice the case of

the petitioner. It is in such circumstances that the jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked by way of this intra-Court appeal.

Section 2(23) of the Panchayat Raj Act, 2016 defines “State Election Commission†to mean the State Election Commission referred to under

Article 243-K of the Constitution of India. Section 2(24) of the Panchayat Raj Act, 2016 defines “Electoral Registration Officer†to mean such an

officer who is designated or nominated as such by the State Election Commission, in consultation with the State Government, for preparing and

revising the electoral rolls in any district. Section 9 relates to the electoral roll for the territorial constituency and, under sub-section (1) thereof, for

each territorial constituency of a Gram Panchayat, an electoral roll shall be prepared, in accordance with the rules made thereunder, and under the

superintendence, direction and control of the State Election Commission. Section 9(2) stipulates that, subject to the superintendence, direction and

control of the State Election Commission, the State Election Commissioner shall supervise and perform all functions relating to the preparation, revision

and correction of the electoral rolls in the State in accordance with this Act and the rules made thereunder.

Whether the names of those individuals, which the petitioner seeks exclusion of, has been rightly entered in the electoral rolls, or whether the

petitioner is justified in his claim that the names of these persons should be excluded from the electoral roll, are all matters for the State Election

Commission, and not for this Court, to decide.

While Mr. S.K. Mandal, learned counsel for the petitioner, would seek a direction to the State Election Commission, it would be wholly

inappropriate for us to issue any such directions, since the State Election Commission has not even been arrayed as a respondent in this writ petition.

While we see no reason to issue any direction in this regard, suffice it to observe that the order now passed by us shall not disable the petitioner from

making a representation to the State Election Commission, and for the State Election Commission to consider the same in accordance with law. It is

made clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the validity or otherwise of the petitioner’s claim, for exclusion of these group of persons,

for these are all matters for the State Election Commission to consider, in case the petitioner submits a representation to them in this regard.

Subject to the aforesaid observations, the Special Appeal fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs.