ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
BEFORE : DR. DHANANJAYA YESHWANT CHANDRACHUD, C.J. AND SUNEET KUMAR, J.
UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER ....Appellants
Versus
ARUN SALUZA .....Respondents
(Special Appeal No. 121 of 2015 Special Appeal Defective Nos. 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127 of 2015 and 175 of 2015, decided on 24th February, 2015)
Hon'ble Dr. Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud, C.J.—This batch of special appeals arises from a judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 8 October 2014. The learned Single Judge was seized with a batch of petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution questioning the legality of notices for eviction issued under Section 5A of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (Act of 1971) and orders passed in pursuance thereof. The learned Single Judge held that Section 5A and Section 5B were introduced by the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Amendment Act, 1980 (Amendment Act of 1980) which, upon receipt of the assent of the President, was published on 22 December 1980 and that, in consequence, the power to remove an unauthorized construction would exist only in respect of premises which have been constructed after the date on which the provisions had been introduced. In other words, in the view of the learned Single Judge, the provision would not apply to a structure which was existing prior to 22 December 1980. The learned Single Judge, in consequence, while allowing the writ petitions and setting aside the orders of eviction, held that this would not preclude the competent authority from proceeding afresh against the writ petitioners after duly verifying that the constructions have been made only after 22 December 1980.
2. The learned Additional Solicitor General of India has, at the hearing, prefaced the submissions by stating that the challenge in this batch of special appeals is only to that part of the order of the learned Single Judge by which the applicability of the provisions of Section 5A has been confined to constructions which have been erected after 22 December 1980. Subject to the position in law being adjudicated upon and clarified by this Court, the appellants would have no objection to the eventual order of remand for re-examining all the facts and circumstances of individual cases.
3. Section 5A and Section 5B were introduced by Section 6 of the Amendment Act of 1980 (No 61 of 1980). The Amendment Act of 1980 received the assent of the President on 20 December 1980 and was published in the Gazette of India on 22 December 1980, Gazette of India Extraordinary, Part-II-Section I, pp 653-660. Section 5A and 5B provide as follows :
“5A. Power to remove unauthorized constructions, etc.—(1) No person shall—
(a) erect or place or raise any building or other structure or fixture,
(b) display or spread any goods,
(c) bring or keep any cattle or other animal, on, or against, or in front of, any public premises except in accordance with the authority (whether by way of grant or any other mode of transfer) under which he was allowed to occupy such premises.
(2) Where any building or other immovable structure or fixture has been erected, placed or raised on any public premises in contravention of the provisions of sub-section (1), the estate officer may serve upon the person erecting such building or other structure or fixture from the public premises within such period, not being less than seven days, as he may specify in the notice; and on the omission or refusal of such person either to show-cause, or to remove such building or other structure or fixture from the public premises, or where the cause shown is not, in the opinion of the estate officer, sufficient, the estate officer may, by order, remove or cause to be removed the building or other structure or fixture from the public premises and recover the cost of such remove from the person aforesaid as an arrear of land revenue.
(3) Where any movable structure or fixture has been erected, placed or raised, or any goods have been displayed or spread, or any cattle or other animal has been brought or kept, on any public premises, in contravention of the provisions of sub-section (1) by any person, the estate officer may, by order, remove or cause to be removed without notice, such structure, fixture, goods, cattle or othe
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.