Section 39 of the PERA Act 2024 deals with immovable encroachments on State property, such as unauthorized buildings, constructions, or permanent installations. Unlike moveable encroachments addressed under Section 38, immovable encroachments require a formal Removal Order due to their permanent... Read More
Section 39 of the PERA Act 2024 deals with immovable encroachments on State property, such as unauthorized buildings, constructions, or permanent installations. Unlike moveable encroachments addressed under Section 38, immovable encroachments require a formal Removal Order due to their permanent nature and potential legal complexities.
The Hearing Officer (HO) is empowered to issue this Removal Order after reviewing the case, which may include examining evidence, hearing representations from the encroacher, and ensuring compliance with due process. This centralized authority ensures that actions against immovable encroachments are lawful, transparent, and accountable, preventing misuse of enforcement powers.
Key points under Section 39 include:
Initiation of action – The Enforcement Officer may identify the immovable encroachment and submit the case to the HO.
Hearing and review – The HO reviews the evidence and any representation filed by the encroacher.
Issuance of Removal Order – If the encroachment is confirmed as illegal, the HO issues a formal Removal Order specifying timelines and enforcement measures.
Enforcement – The EO, under supervision of the SDEO, executes the Removal Order to remove or demolish the encroachment.
This process ensures that enforcement is conducted legally and fairly, balancing State property rights with the encroacher’s right to representation. By giving the HO the authority to issue the Removal Order, the PERA Act 2024 establishes a structured and accountable mechanism for dealing with immovable encroachments.
In conclusion, under Section 39 of the PERA Act 2024, the Hearing Officer is responsible for issuing the Removal Order for immovable encroachments, ensuring lawful enforcement, procedural fairness, and protection of State property.
Discussion
Leave a Comment