HC Relief for Builders Encroaching Public Land

        I've got an interesting case. PARAS BUILDTECH INDIA PVT LTD is a builder has encroached the public land and wants adjustment of the area by giving an alternative area. I am told by my client that the matter is still pending with National Green Tribunal as the encroachment has adverse bearing on environment and the builder by concealing the crucial facts have obtained the ex-party stay. It appears very rare case in which High Court has granted ex-party stay to the builder who admittedly encroached  the public land, apparently causing harm to the environment, that is also without hearing the opposite party.

         Interestingly, firstly, on 25.04.2017 the matter was listed before J. M.M.S. BEDI, who appears to have refused to hear the matter and placed the matter before the Chief Justice for necessary orders. See the Order:

"CWP-8408-2017 

PARAS BUILDTECH INDIA PVT LTD AND ORS 

V/S 

STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS 

Present: Mr. Alok Mittal, Advocate, for the petitioners. 

**** 

Be listed before another Bench after obtaining necessary orders from Hon'ble the Chief Justice, on 27.04.2017. 

(M.M.S. BEDI) JUDGE 

April 25, 2017"

        Then on 27.04.2017 Senior Advocate Mr. Akshay Bhan(Son of former Supreme Court Judge J. Ashok Bhan) appeared before J. AMIT RAWAL; who passed the below mentioned order:

"CWP-8408-2017 

PARAS BUILDTECH INDIA PVT LTD AND ORS 

V/S 

STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS

Present:        Mr. Akshay Bhan, Senior Advocate 

                     with Mr. Amandeep Singh Talwar, Advocate for the petitioner. 

* * * 

Inter alia contends that in pursuance to the direction given by the Green Tribunal, demarcation of land in dispute was conducted and as per the report dated 08.04.2016 (Annexure P-14), it was found that there is an encroachment by the petitioner on an area of 195 square yards (163.045 sq.mtr.) by building a ramp. The petitioner is stated to have made a representation for adjustment of the area by giving an alternative area vide letter dated 10.11.2016 (Annexure P-19) and that was being considered and recommended yet on the basis of the complaint, the Municipal Corporation called upon the petitioner, vide Annexure P-23 for fresh demarcation. The petitioner has already submitted a representation to that effect for conducting the demarcation on 13.04.2017 but somehow the demarcation has not been done and thus, urges this Court for quashing the impugned order, much less issuance of direction to the authorities for implementation of the report dated 20.04.2016 (Annexure P-17). Notice of motion for 03.08.2017. In the meanwhile, further proceedings in pursuance to notices dated 30.03.2017 (Annexure P-21) and 13.04.2017 (Annexure P-23) are ordered to be kept in abeyance. 

 (AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE" 

April 27, 2017