SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1956 Supreme(All) 37

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Agarwala and Bhargava, JJ.
BRIGADE COMMANDER, MEERUT SUB-AREA - Appellant
Versus
GANGA PRASAD - Respondents
Special Appeal 201 Of 1954
Decided On : 02/07/1956

Advocates Appeared:
S.N.MISRA, Sripati Narain Singh

Headnote:

GOVERNMENT PREMISES (EVICTION) ACT, 1950 - SECTION 3 - VALIDITY - ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION - CLASSIFICATION - REASONABLE NEXUS - SUBJECTIVE SATISFACTION OF COMPETENT AUTHORITY - NO OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING - BAR OF JURISDICTION OF CIVIL COURT - INVALIDITY OF THE ACT.

Fact of the Case:

The respondent, Ganga Prasad Dubey, was in possession of a piece of land within the limits of the Cantonment Board, Meerut. The land was alleged to have been encroached upon by the respondent. On 29-9-1952, the Brigade Commander issued a notice under Section 3 of the Government Premises (Eviction) Act, 1950, requiring the respondent to vacate the land. The respondent filed a writ petition challenging the validity of the notice on the grounds that his possession was not unauthorized and that even if it was initially unauthorized, the encroachment had been condoned by the Cantonment authorities. The single Judge quashed the notice on the ground that it was in respect of an open piece of land and not in respect of any building and that such an open piece of land did not fall within the definition of the word "premises" which were defined in the aforesaid Act as "a building or a part of a building".

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the Government Premises (Eviction) Act, 1950, was invalid as it contravened the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution. The court held that the classification made by the Act between occupants of Government premises and occupants of private premises was not based on any intelligible differentia and that there was no rational nexus between the objective of the Act and the differentia. The court also held that the provisions of the Act were harsh and unjust and that they denied to persons in occupation of Government premises rights which are considered fundamental in all civilized societies.

Issues: 1. Whether the Government Premises (Eviction) Act, 1950, contravened the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution? 2. Whether the notice issued under Section 3 of the Act was valid?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the Government Premises (Eviction) Act, 1950, contravened the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution because: (a) the classification made by the Act between occupants of Government premises and occupants of private premises was not based on any intelligible differentia; (b) there was no rational nexus between the objective of the Act and the differentia; (c) the provisions of the Act were harsh and unjust and denied to persons in occupation of Government premises rights which are considered fundamental in all civilized societies. 2. The court held that the notice issued under Section 3 of the Act was invalid because the Act itself was invalid.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of the single Judge quashing the notice issued under Section 3 of the Government Premises (Eviction) Act, 1950.

AGARWALA, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a special appeal against an order of Mehrotra J. , allowing a writ petition and quashing a notice issued by the Brigade Commander, Meerut Sub Area, dated 29-9-1952, requiring the respondent Ganga Prasad Dubey to vacate a certain piece of land after demolition of the construction thereon, under Section 3 of the Government Premises (Eviction) Act, 1950.

( 2 ) THE facts, briefly stated, are as follows. In the year 1923 one Kesho Prasad who was in authorised possession of 798 Sq. feet of land within the limits of the Cantonment Board, Meerut sold the land with the constructions thereon to one Babu Lal. In 1929 Babu Lal applied to the cantonment Board for being permitted to make constructions over a portion of the land. The Cantonment Board sanctioned the constructions. In making the constructions Babu Lal is alleged to have encroached upon certain land belonging to the Government. Thereupon on 28-4-1936 a suit was filed on behalf of the Secretary of State by the Military Estates Officer for possession over the land so alleged to have been encroached upon. During the pendency of these proceedings Babu Lal sold the land in his possession and the constructions to one Sri Ram Gopal on 9-6-1936. On 19-11-1936 the suit was decreed ex parte against Babu Lal. On 18-5-1937 Sri Ram Gopal sold the land and the constructions to Ganga Prasad Dubey respondent. In execution proceedings on behalf of the Secretary of State an application was made to implead Ganga Prasad. Dubey as a judgment-debtor and for permission for execution of the decree against him. The application was refused by the execution court but was allowed by the appellate court. The decree was then executed on 14-1-1938 and according to the respondent a portion of a platform covering an area of 131 Sq. feet was demolished.


( 3 ) GANGA Prasad Dubey then filed a suit for a declaration that the land should be regarded as an area held by an authorised person for the reason that the encroachment, even if there was one, must be deemed to have been condoned in the events that had happened. In that suit it was held that the disputed land had become private occupied land, but the suit was dismissed on the ground that it was barred by time.

( 4 ) ON 18-1-1952, and on 19-9-1952, the Bazar Committee of the Cantonment Board passed two resolutions the effect of which according to Ganga Prasad Dubey was that the Cantonment Board condoned his unauthorised possession over the land.

( 5 ) ON 29-9-1952, Sri P. N. Kripal, Brigade Commander, Head Quarters, Meerut, issued a notice under Section 3 of the Government Premises (Eviction) Act calling upon Ganga Prasad Dubey respondent to vacate the land on the ground that he was in unauthorised occupation thereof. Thereupon Ganga Prasad Dubey filed the writ petition, which has given rise to this appeal, challenging the order passed by the Brigade Commander on the grounds firstly that the possession of the respondent was not unauthorised and secondly that even if it was initially unauthorised the encroachment had been condoned by the Cantonment authorities. The respondent alleged that in view of the above grounds the notice issued by the Brigade commander was ultra vires and liable to be quashed.

( 6 ) ON behalf of the Brigade Commander it was contended that the occupation of the respondent was unauthorised and that the Cantonment Board had not condoned his unauthorised occupation and even if it had done so its action was not binding on the military authorities.

( 7 ) AT the hearing before the learned single Judge a further ground was taken on behalf of the respondent that the notice in question was invalid because it was in respect of an open piece of land and not in respect of any building and that such an open piece of land did not fall within the definition of the word "premises" which were defined in the aforesaid Act as "a building or a part of a building".

( 8 ) THE learned single Judge came to the conclusion that a notice u




























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top