TeaHe has timely intervention of the Supreme Court Forced eviction of nearly 50,000 people from Haldwani prevented In Uttarakhand, where squatters are alleged to have encroached upon railway property for decades. The Uttarakhand High Court had taken a strong stand against the residents, and passed several directions that required their eviction within a week, backed by force, including the deployment of paramilitary forces. Significantly, the Bench underlined the humanitarian approach to the issue and while staying the order, spoke of the need for rehabilitation before eviction. In the first round of litigation on the same land adjacent to Haldwani railway station, court orders allowed proceedings against individual occupants The Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971, Nearing completion. This time also the order was passed by the High Court on a PIL. High Court’s detailed decision Shows that the claim of the inhabitants can be traced to a 1907 office memorandum which states that the area should be managed under rules relating to ‘Nazul lands’. The court has ruled that this was not a government order, but only a communication as to how the land was to be managed, and that it did not amount to declaring it as ‘nazul land’, ie land that has come into the hands of the state escheat. Since one of the rules of Nazul is that there cannot be a sale or lease, the court rejected all claims made by the occupants based on the said documents for purchase through lease, sale and in some cases auction .
The conflict between the occupiers of public land and the state which wants to reclaim the land is a never ending saga in the country. The lack of housing, as well as inadequate recognition of the right to shelter, means that a large number of people encroach on vacant land, whether at the bottom of water bodies or on government property. This often leads to attempts to evict the occupants and gives rise to litigation. Invariably, there are claims of occupancy rights on the basis of long stay in the same place. There are court judgments that insist on rehabilitation measures and consultation with the displaced before eviction. Some courts have also recorded the view that compulsory resettlement may prove to be an incentive for encroachment. The Haldwani eviction effort has unfortunately taken a communal colour, and there appears to be a clamor for early eviction of the Muslim residents. India’s record on rehabilitation of those evicted from public places is not good, and this case provides an opportunity for the Supreme Court to legislate on effective prevention of encroachments along with meaningful rehabilitation.