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) 200

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
G. Mehrotra, J.
RAJ NARAIN AGARWAL - Appellant
Versus
ADMINISTRATOR, IMPROVEMENT TRUST, AGRA - Respondents
Civil Misc. Writ 1316 Of 1955
Decided On : 11/09/1956

Advocates Appeared:
A.K.KIRTY

Headnote:

BYE-LAW - MUNICIPALITIES ACT, 1916 - SECTION 298 - BYE-LAW 3 (1) - VALIDITY - ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION - CLASSIFICATION - REASONABLE RELATION TO THE OBJECTIVE OF THE ACT - BYE-LAW AFFECTING FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT - VOID UNDER ARTICLE 13 (2) OF THE CONSTITUTION.

Fact of the Case:

Petitioner, the owner of a flour mill, received notices from the Administrator, Agra Improvement Trust, alleging encroachment on Nazul land and requiring removal of the encroachment. Petitioner challenged the validity of the notices and the bye-law under which they were issued, claiming infringement of his fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 19 (1) (f) of the Constitution.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that Bye-law 3 (1) of the Bye-laws of the Agra Municipal Board, which authorized the Administrator to issue notices for removal of encroachments on Nazul land, was unconstitutional and void under Article 13 (2) of the Constitution as it affected the fundamental right guaranteed to the petitioner under Article 14.

Issues: 1. Whether Bye-law 3 (1) of the Bye-laws of the Agra Municipal Board was ultra vires and affected the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution? 2. Whether the bye-law infringed the right guaranteed under Article 19 (1) (f) of the Constitution? 3. Whether the bye-law went beyond the scope of the provisions of Section 298 of the Municipalities Act?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The classification made by the bye-law, giving special power to the Municipal Board to eject a person from a land deemed to be encroached upon by the Board, did not bear any reasonable relation to the objective of the Municipalities Act, which was to efficiently administer municipal areas and provide for public services. 2. The bye-law gave the Municipal Board the power to determine any land as Nazul land and summarily eject any alleged encroacher without providing a right of appeal, which was a drastic provision not justified by the objective of the Act. 3. The bye-law, by giving special treatment to the owners of Nazul land, violated the principle of equality before the law guaranteed by Article 14 of the Constitution.

Final Decision: The court allowed the petition, quashed the two notices issued under Bye-law 3 (1), and directed the opposite party not to act under the said notices.

G. MEHROTRA, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution praying that a writ of certiorari be issued quashing the notices dated 15-9-1955 and 23-12-1955 issued by the opposite party, the administrator, Improvement Trust, Agra. It is further prayed that a writ of mandamus be issued to the opposite party requiring him to forebear from giving effect to the notices and the order dated 15-9-1955 and 23-12-1955.

( 2 ) THE facts briefly which are alleged in the affidavit are that the petitioner is the proprietor of a flour mill known as Agra Roller Flour Mill which is situate in Phatak Suraj Brian, Agra, on land, and premises bearing the present municipal number 1162. The land was acquired by the petitioner under various sale deeds on different dates and it is not necessary to go into details as regards the question of title of the petitioner to the land. On 16-9-1955 the petitioner, it is alleged, received the notice dated 15-9-1955 from Sri M. A. Quraishi, Administrator, Agra Improvement Trust, Agra, requiring him to remove encroachments alleged to have been made over a total area of 629. 7 sq. yards of Nazul Plot No. 2325 at Phatak. Suraj Bhan, Agra within ten days of the receipt of the notice failing which the encroachments were to be removed through the Administrators own agency at petitioners cost. This notice purports to have been issued under bye-law No. 3 (1) of the Bye-laws of the Agra municipal Board. , The petitioner then on receipt of the notice, it is alleged, made several attempts to personally see the Administrator. Several attempts failed till untimately he met the administrator and he was asked to give his reply to the notice. Thereafter the petitioner filed his objections to it in writing and he claimed that he had, made no encroachments on the Nazul land but whatever constructions he had made he had made on his own land. At a later stage he was asked to produce evidence to substantiate this allegation. His allegation is that he tried to place all the materials before the Administrator but he was not given any opportunity till finally on 23-12-1955 the notice was issued by the Administrator which reads as follows:

"whereas a notice No. 4116 dated 15-9-1955 under bye-law No. 3 (1) of the Bye-laws for protection of Government and Municipal Property directing you to remove the encroachment over a portion measuring 629. 7 sq. yards of Nazul -plot No. 2325 situated at Phatak Suraj Bhan, belanganj, encroached upon by you as follows:

has already been served upon you on 16-9-1955. And whereas the said encroachment has not yet been removed although ten days time given in the notice referred to above has already expired. I, M. A. Quraishi, ICS, Administrator, Agra Improvement Trust, hereby order the removal of the said encroachment by the agency of the Agra Improvement Trust on 30-12-1955 at 10 a. m. at your costs," after the receipt of this notice the petitioner tried that the demolition of the constructions be stayed but as he failed in his attempts ultimately this petition was filed in this Court on 29-12-1955. By means of this petition, as I have already pointed out, the two notices, one issued on 15-9-1955 and the other on 23-12-1955, are sought to be quashed.

( 3 ) THE counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the opposite party in which it is asserted that the petitioner is not the owner of the land on which he had made certain constructions, that land is a part of the Nazul land and the petitioner has encroached upon it. It is further alleged in the counter-affidavit that the petitioner was given full opportunity which he did not avail of with the result that the Administrator was forced to take action under the Bye-laws of the Municipal board and the provisions of the Act. In view of the points pressed before me and in view of the decision on the other points it is not necessary to enter into this controversial question of fact.

( 4 ) THREE points have been urged by the petitioner. Firstl










Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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