By the Court.—With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, we have proceeded to decide the writ petitions at the admission stage without calling for the counter-affidavit and both the writ petitions are being disposed of by common judgment as the controversy involved therein is the same.

2. Indian Potash Limited (petitioner in Writ C No. 28670 of 2016) has prayed for direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from Khasra Nos. 154, 155, 159M, 641, 658M, 666, 609, 613, 625, 626, 627, 633, 634, 635/1M, 635/2, 635/3, 635/4 situated at Begampur and Baheri, District Muzaffarnagar and not to demolish the building and structure standing thereon.

3. Pawan Kumar and 9 others (petitioners in Writ C No. 29782 of 2016) have prayed for prayed for direction to the respondents not to dispossess them from the shops situated over Khasra Nos. 154, 155, 159M, 641, 658M, 666, 609, 613, 625, 626, 627, 633, 634, 635/1M, 635/2, 635/3, 635/4 situated at Begampur and Baheri, District Muzaffarnagar and not to demolish the shops and structures standing thereon.

4. For the sake of convenience, the facts of Writ C No. 28670 of 2016 are being noted below for deciding the controversy :

5. On the matter being taken up on 17.6.2016, this Court had proceeded to pass following interim orders :

“The petitioner is a purchaser of a unit of U.P.Sugar Corporation by means of a sale-deed dated 7.12.2010. The schedule to the sale-deed indicates that various pieces of land were sold to the petitioner. The respondent, namely, the Public Works Department in the garb of widening the road has demolished the boundary wall and is planning to make the road on the land, which has been sold to the petitioner.

According to the respondents, the land belongs to the Government by virtue of a notification issued on 30.11.1965. On the other hand, the recital of the sale-deed indicates that the land has been granted to the petitioner by virtue of a sale-deed.

Let a counter-affidavit be filed by respondent Nos. 1,2 and 3 within three weeks.

List on 11.7.2016.

In the meanwhile, no construction of any road will be made on the land being Khasra Nos. 154, 155, 159ma, 641, 658ma, 666, 609, 613, 625, 626, 627, 633, 634, 635/1ma, 635/2, 635/3 and 635/4 till the next date of listing.”

6. Record in question reflects that the petitioner is a unit of Indian Potash Limited (Sugar Division) and is engaged in manufacturing of crystal sugar through vacuum pan process. In the year 1993, Amrit Sugar Mill was established but under the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Undertakings (Acquisition) Act, 1971, the Amrit Sugar Mill was acquired by the State Government on 28.10.1984. Thereafter, it was known as U.P. State Sugar Corporation, Unit Rohana Kalan, District Muzaffarnagar. In order to overcome the financial constraints the State Government had proceeded for disinvestment policy and the petitioner being the highest bidder entered into the Slump Sale Agreement with U.P. State Sugar Corporation on 12.10.2010. Thereafter the sale-deed was executed on 7.12.2010 between the petitioner and U.P. State Sugar Corporation Limited for plant and machinery and the land. After execution of the sale-deed the name of the petitioner was mutated in the revenue record.

7. In the present matter, the dispute arose when the Public Works Department had proceeded to widen the Muzaffarnagar-Deoband Road. As per case of the petitioner, on 3.6.2016 the respondent No. 2 illegally and arbitrarily demolished the boundary wall of sugar mill and encroached upto 12 feet land inside the sugar mill and as such it has been contended that the respondents are only entitled to remove the construction upto 55 feet from the middle of the road under the provisions of U.P. Roadside Land Control Act, 1945 (in short, “the Act of 1945”).

8. Shri Shakti Swarup Nigam, learned co