Foreigners can't use writ petitions to claim government land: Chhattisgarh HC

NEW DELHI: The Chhattisgarh high court, in an order dated July 22, dismissed petitions filed by Bangladeshi refugees seeking protection from eviction from a government land. The court said foreigners cannot ask the high court to protect their stay on government land if they have no legal right over it. It also said living on such land for a long time does not give them ownership or any legal rights.Why did the petitioners approach the high court?According to the court order, the petitioners challenged notices issued by the authorities and asked the high court to stop the government from demolishing their houses and shops or removing them from land in Village Madanpur in the Surajpur district.The petitioners claimed they and their families had migrated from Bangladesh and were settled by the government in 1964 under a rehabilitation scheme. They argued they had been living on the land for more than 60 years, built houses, cultivated crops, installed tube wells and depended on the land for their livelihood.They further argued that the land had been given to the Mahatma Gandhi University of Horticulture and Forestry for setting up a horticulture college, even though the university had originally sought land elsewhere. They alleged that the authorities ignored their objections even though other vacant government land was available for the project.However, the State alleged that the land belonged to the government and had been allotted for a public project. It said the petitioners could not produce any document to show they owned the land or had any legal right over it. The State further argued that simply living on government land for many years did not give them the right to continue occupying it.Why did the high court dismiss the petitions?Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad said the case involved several disputed facts, including whether the petitioners had any legal right over the land. The court said such issues cannot be decided in a writ petition.The court also noted that the petitioners had failed to produce any document showing they legally owned or were entitled to the government land."The fundamental right of a foreigner is confined to Article 21... A person who is neither a citizen nor able to establish any lawful entitlement cannot invoke the extraordinary writ jurisdiction to protect an unauthorised possession over Government land," the court observed, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Sarbananda Sonowal v. Union of India.The high court further referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Jagpal Singh v. State of Punjab, which said people cannot claim rights over government land simply because they have occupied it for a long time or built houses on it.The court said government land is meant for public use and long occupation by itself does not give anyone a legal right over it."The legal position is no longer res integra that a trespasser or an unauthorised occupant of government land does not acquire any legal, equitable, or vested right over such land merely by virtue of prolonged possession or by raising constructions thereon," the court said.Holding that the petitioners had failed to show any legal right over the government land, the high court dismissed all the petitions.