HC isn’t for enforcing admn, quasi-judicial orders

Nagpur: Coming down heavily on petitioners complaining against non-compliance of Amravati divisional commissioner’s orders, the Nagpur bench of Bombay high court on Friday clarified that the HC isn’t an executing court to ensure enforcement and execution of orders passed by administrative and quasi-judicial authorities.
“We would have liked to dismiss the petition by imposing costs. But, as this is the first time that such an instance has been noticed by us, we would refrain from doing so and would put an end to the matter by issuing caution to the parties,” a division bench comprising justices Sunil Shukre and Anil Kilor said.
“We record our displeasure for abuse of the jurisdiction of this court and accordingly, we caution the parties to refrain from doing so,” the bench added before summarily dismissing the petition filed by Jyoti Tayade and others.
The petitioners had moved the judiciary alleging encroachment by the respondents on Gram Panchayat land in Amravati. Earlier, they had made various representations to the village sarpanch, Panchayat Samiti members, Zilla Parishad’s chief executive officer (CEO) and Gram Panchayat (GP) members.
Subsequently, the CEO appointed an officer to inspect the petitioners’ claim against the respondents, which were found to be true in his report. Thereafter, the executive engineer also ordered an inquiry into their claims, but even its report had similar findings, confirming encroachment on government land.
Quoting Section 53 of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, the petitioners contended that the GP and Sarpanch have powers to remove illegal construction from such areas. Accordingly, the respondents were issued notices to immediately stop construction on the GP land and remove other illegal structures. However, they continued their illegal activities. The respondents then went into appeal against the GP orders before the Amravati divisional commissioner, who ordered fresh inspection and measurement of the disputed land as per the law by the ZP CEO and other authorities on January 1.
The petitioners contended that even after six months the CEO has failed to comply with the commissioner’s order forcing them to approach the judiciary doors for directives to the former to expedite the process and remove encroachment.
“The petitioners submit that the order passed by divisional commissioner directing CEO to make enquiry regarding encroachment and to remove it if the result confirmed the findings, is not being implemented by CEO. We must make it clear that HC isn’t an executing court for ensuring enforcement and execution of the orders passed by the administrative and quasi-judicial authorities,” the judges said.