Nagpur: Down a lot to the Applicant complained of the non-compliance of the command commission of the Amravati Division, the Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court on Friday clarified that HC was not a court that implemented to ensure the enforcement and implementation of orders graduated by administration and quasi-judicial authorities.
“We want to stop the petition by imposing costs.
But, because this is the first time such an instance has been noticed by us, we will refrain from doing that and will end this problem by removing caution to the parties,” Division benches which consists of the Seory Sunil Shukre and Anil Kior said.
“We recording our displeasure because of the misuse of this court jurisdiction and thus, we warn the parties to refrain from doing so,” benches added before shortness of the petition asked by Jyoti Took and others.
The applicant has moved encroachment that accused the manifestation by respondents in the Gram Panchayat land in Amravati.
Previously, they had made various representations of Sarpanch village, Panchayat Samiti members, Chief Executive Zilla Parishad (CEO) and Member of Gram Panchayat (GP).
Furthermore, the CEO appointed an officer to examine the applicant’s claim against respondents, which was found correctly in his report.
After that, the executive engineer also ordered an investigation of their claims, but even the report had similar findings, confirming encroachment in government land.
Quoting Part 53 of the Panchayat Law in Bombay Village, the Petitioner argues that the GP and Sarpanch have the power to eliminate illegal development of the area.
Therefore, the respondents issued a notice to immediately stop construction on the GP soil and eliminate other illegal structures.
However, they continued their illegal activities.
The respondent then appealed the GP order before the Commissioner of the Amravati Division, which ordered new inspections and measurements of the disputed land in accordance with the law by the CEO of ZP and other authorities on January 1, even after six months.
The CEO has failed to obey the commissioner’s order forcing them to approach the judiciary door for direction to the former to speed up the process and eliminate encroachment.
“The Petitioner handed over the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner directing the CEO to make an investigation of encroachment and to delete it if the results confirm the findings, not implemented by the CEO.
We must explain that HC is not a court that executes to ensure the enforcement and implementation of orders passed by administrative authorities and implementation Quasi-justice, “said the judges.