Punjab and Haryana High Court orders probe into BDPO's conduct over street encroachment
Saurabh Malik
Chandigarh, November 21
In a stern warning to public officials responsible for safeguarding community spaces, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed a District Development and Panchayat Officer to look into the conduct of a Block Development and Panchayat Officer following his failure to ensure the rule of law and protection of public streets.
Resorted to appeasement
Instead of ensuring the removal of encroachments, the Sherpur BDPO chose to follow an appeasing path of allowing mutual encroachment on the public street by residents of the village. — The Bench
The direction came as Justice Vinod S Bhardwaj of the high court expressed deep concern over Sherpur BDPO’s action. Instead of ensuring the removal of encroachments, the BDPO chose to follow “an appeasing path of allowing mutual encroachment on the public street by residents of the village”, the Bench observed, while deprecating his conduct.
Justice Bhardwaj also directed the carrying out of the street’s demarcation at Ghanaur Kalan village in Sangrur district by the revenue authorities in front of the BDPO and Gram Panchayat residents in the presence of advocate Sahil Shehrawat, who was appointed local commission to oversee the demarcation work.
Justice Bhardwaj also called for the demarcation report’s copy, along with the status regarding the removal of encroachments, if any, found on the public street. Setting a 10-week deadline, the Bench made it clear that the local commission’s fee would to be paid by the respondent-Department of Development and Panchayat.
The admonition and directions came on a petition alleging encroachment on the public street, impeding free movement of the residents and vehicles used for agricultural purposes. Justice Bhardwaj’s Bench during the course of hearing was told by the state counsel and another respondent that the matter had been amicably resolved among the parties. As such, the present petition might be accordingly dismissed, more so as the petitioner was not appearing before this court successively on three occasions.
Taking into consideration the petitioner’s repeated non-appearance, Justice Bhardwaj dismissed the petition for non-prosecution, but sought a compliance report after taking into consideration that the cause espoused by the petitioner pertained to encroachment on the public street impeding free movement.
“It is deemed expedient to seek a compliance report by the respondent BDPO more so when the response filed by the officer does not aver that the encroachments in the street have been removed and merely raises an emphasis that the matter has been resolved by the panchayat and that similar encroachment had also been done by the petitioner himself along with more than 10 other persons. Such consensual encroachment on a public street cannot be the basis for disposing of petitions. Merely because the petitioner is a violator does not give the ultimate control of a lis,” Justice Bhardwaj asserted.
