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

A.P.SAHI, VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA
BUNDELKHAND UNIVERSITY – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel :
Anil Kumar Bajpai for the Petitioners; A.S.G.I. for the Respondents.

JUDGMENT

By the Court.—Heard Sri Anil Kumar Bajpai, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Gyan Prakash, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 alongwith Sri Ravi Prakash Srivastava and Sri Mohd. Isha Khan, who has accepted notice for respondent No. 4.

2. The proceedings under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as “PP Act”) have been challenged by the petitioner-University contending that the provisions of the PP Act does not apply and the jurisdiction of the Estate Officer is completely excluded keeping in view the nature of the occupancy which is admittedly not unauthorised.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the land was acquired and handed over to the University and the petitioner-University has nowhere raised any constructions or occupied any land beyond the area that was acquired and given to the University. The petitioner-University is, therefore, neither an encroacher nor an unauthorised occupier so as to fall within the definition of the the PP Act. Even otherwise, the petitioner-University is a public statutory body and the respondents cannot raise the dispute und









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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top