Back
2017 Supreme(SC) 1421
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN, SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, JJ.
Parmanand Singh (D) Th. Lrs. - Appellant
Versus
Union of India and Anr. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 7183 of 2008
Decided On : 31-08-2017
For the Appellant :Akhilesh Kumar Pandey, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Yashank Adhyaru, Sr. Adv., Mrs. Rani Chhabra, Ms. Priyanka Sony, Ms. Alka Agrawal, M.K. Maroria, D.S. Mahra, Advocates.
The dismissal of the suit under Section 180 of the U.P. Tenancy Act affected the appellant's status as a hereditary tenant, impacting the jurisdictional fact of being an unauthorized occupant under the Public Premises Act, rendering all orders and judgments without jurisdiction.
Headnote:
Zamindari - Eviction Proceedings - U.P. Zamindari Act, U.P. Tenancy Act, Public Premises Act - Section 122-B, Section 180, Section 4(1), Section 5(1) - The court discussed the proceedings initiated under the U.P. Zamindari Act, U.P. Tenancy Act, and Public Premises Act. It highlighted the dismissal of the suit under Section 180 of the U.P. Tenancy Act and the implications of the dismissal on the appellant's status as a hereditary tenant, which affected the jurisdictional fact of being an unauthorized occupant under the Public Premises Act. The court also directed the return of land to the appellants and the displacement of ex-servicemen if necessary.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant's ancestors were Zamindars and claimed possession of disputed land since 1930. Proceedings were initiated against them under Section 122-B of the U.P. Zamindari Act and Section 180 of the U.P. Tenancy Act. Subsequently, proceedings under the Public Premises Act were also initiated, leading to the eviction of the appellants.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the dismissal of the suit under Section 180 of the U.P. Tenancy Act resulted in the appellant's status as a hereditary tenant, affecting the jurisdictional fact of being an unauthorized occupant under the Public Premises Act. The court set aside the judgment under appeal and allowed the appeal, directing the return of land to the appellants and displacement of ex-servicemen if necessary.
Issues: The issues involved the appellant's possession of disputed land, the initiation of proceedings under various acts, and the jurisdictional fact of being an unauthorized occupant under the Public Premises Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The dismissal of the suit under Section 180 of the U.P. Tenancy Act resulted in the appellant's status as a hereditary tenant, affecting the jurisdictional fact of being an unauthorized occupant under the Public Premises Act, rendering all orders and judgments without jurisdiction.
Final Decision: The judgment under appeal was set aside, and the appeal was allowed. The court directed the return of land to the appellants and the displacement of ex-servicemen if necessary.
JUDGMENT :
R.F. Nariman, J.
The present case reveals a very sorry state of affairs. It appears that the ancestors of the appellant were Zamindars, and the appellants claim that they were in possession of the disputed land, which is roughly 5 acres, since 1930. On 25th July, 1974, proceedings under Section 122-B of the U.P. Zamindari Act were initiated against the appellants on the ground that the said land belonged to the State Government and the Gaon Sabha and that the appellants therefore ought to be evicted. After the appellants filed their reply in the aforesaid proceedings, by order dated 25th July, 1974, the proceedings were dropped and it was stated that proceedings under Section 180 of the U.P. Tenancy Act be initiated.
2. On 30th October, 1974, the State Government on behalf of the Union of India through the Collector Mirzapur filed a suit being Suit No. 1 of 1974-75 under Section 180 of the U.P. Tenancy Act for recovery of possession and damages against the appellants. The appellants filed their written statement and contested the suit. During the pendency of the suit, a show cause notice dated 24th February, 1977, was issued by the Defence Estate Officer under the Public Premises Eviction Act under Section 4(1) thereof. On 11th March, 1977, the appellant replied to the said notice. On 17th March, 1977 the Defence Estate Officer passed an order under Section 5(1) of the Public Premises Act. We have gone through the said order, which only states that the respondent was put on notice and their reply was received and considered. Without giving any reason as to why the reply was not acceptable, an order under Section 5(1) of the said Act was made to evict the appellants from the said premises. On 6th April, 1977 the State Government allowed the Suit No. 1 of 1974-75 to be dismissed in default.
3. Inasmuch as the proceeding under Public Premises Act then continued, a writ petition being filed by the appellant which was also disposed of, an appeal which was first dismissed on the ground of delay was then restored by the High Court by order dated 10th May, 1988. This appeal finally dismissed on 10th April, 1990. This order recorded :
"Further it is clear from the evidence on record that the authorities have taken the possession of the land in question and has further allotted the same to some other ex-servicemen on 7.9.84 and the possession was also delivered to the allottees.
On the basis of the discussions made above, as well as on the assessment of the evidence on record, I come to the conclusion that the appellant was rightly found in unauthorized occupation by the Defence Estate Officer over the land in question and I do not find any illegality in the proceeding initiated for the eviction of the appellant from the land in question. I am of the view that the present appeal, being devoid of any merit, is liable to be dismissed and the impugned order dated 17.3.77 passed by the Defence Estate Officer under section 5(1) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 deserves to be confirmed.
ORDER
The appeal is dismissed. The impugned order dated 17.3.77 passed by the Defence Estate Officer, Bihar and Orissa Circle Danapur Cantonment Bihar under section 5(1) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 is hereby confirmed."
4. A writ petition was filed against the aforesaid order, in which an affidavit was filed by one Sonam Yangdol in which the deponent recorded some of the aforesaid facts and also referred to the suit that was filed under Section 180 of the U.P. Tenancy Act. Without giving the actual date on which the suit was dismissed for default, which we have seen is on 6th April, 1977, the deponent of this affidavit went on to state "thereafter proceedings were initiated under the Public Premises Act for eviction on 24th February, 1977."
5. It is most unfortunate that an impression was sought to be created that it was only after the suit was not proceeded with that proceedings w
