The entries in the General Land Register are conclusive evidence of title, and unauthorized constructions can be ordered for removal under the Public Premises Act.

Dilip Gupta and Vinod Kumar Misra, JJ.

This petition seeks the quashing of the order dated 30 June 2015 passed by the Estate Officer of the Meerut Cantonment Board1 under sub-section (2) of section 5-A of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 19712 directing the petitioner to remove immovable the structures/fixtures.

2. A notice dated 30 October 2013 was issued to the petitioner to remove the immovable structures or show cause by 7 November 2013 why a direction for removal of such immovable structures/fixtures from the premises bearing House No.182-183 Dal Mandi, Sadar, Meerut Cantt. may not be issued. The petitioner filed objections on 21 November 2013.

3. The case of the Cantonment Board was that site comprising GLR Survey No.357/1110 is classified as B-3 land admeasuring 504 sq. feet and properly described as House No.182-183, Dal Mandi, Sadar, Meerut Cantt. The holder of the occupancy right is mentioned as Chanda son of Jewan Barbar on Old Grant terms. The Assistant Engineer reported that unauthorised construction in a part of House No.182-183 was done without any prior permission of the competent authority and without any right, title or interest as it was recorded as B-3, Defence Land in the name of Chanda.

4. On a consideration of the notice, the reply filed by the petitioner and the documents on record, the Estate Officer found as a fact that the provisions of the Act were applicable to the building and that the petitioner was not the holder of occupancy rights in the property. The Estate Officer also found that the constructions had been raised without any authority or sanction and even otherwise, the petitioner had no locus and was merely a trespasser. The Estate Officer also recorded a finding that the petitioner had constructed altogether new unauthorised constructions starting from the foundation with RCC pillars and RCC beams. The constructions, having been found to be unauthorised, were accordingly directed to be removed.

5. The petitioner has contended that the assessment orders of the property are in the name of Munna son of Kanhaiya Lal and the petitioner had purchased the property. It is also his contention that Maya Devi had filed Original Suit No.1504 of 2013 against the Cantonment Board in which an order of status quo was passed on 9 December 2014.

6. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted.

7. The extract from the General Land Register is reproduced below :

EXTRACT FROM THE GENERAL LAND REGISTER

SADAR BAZAR, MEERUT CANTT

Survey No.357/1110

EXISTING ENTRIES

DETAILS AND DATE OF MUTATION SUBSIDIARY SURVEY NO. VOLUME AND PAGE OF REGISTER

1.

2.

3.

Area in Acres/Sq. Ft.

4. 504 Sqft.

Description No.

5. House Nos.182 & 183

Class

6. B-3

By whom Managed

7. C B Meerut

Land Lord

8. Govt. of India

Holder of Occupancy Rights

9. Chanda S/o Jewan Barbar

Nature of Holder Rights

10. Old grant

Rent Payable per annum

To Central Government

To Cantonment Board

11. -

Date of Expiry of Lease

12. -

Remarks

13. -

8. The extract from the General Land Register, Sadar Bazar, Meerut Cantt. clearly shows that Survey No.357/1110 is a Class B-3 land of which the landlord is the Government of India and is managed by the Cantonment Board, Meerut. The holder of occupancy rights is also shown to be Chanda.

9. The Supreme Court in Union of India & Ors. Vs. Robert Zomawia Street, (2014) 6 SCC 707 , after placing reliance on the earlier decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. Ibrahim Uddin, (2012) 8 SCC 148 : 2012 (2) ARC 737, has held that the entries made in the GLR maintained under the Cantonment Land Administration Rules is conclusive evidence of title. In this connection reference needs to be made to paragraphs 12, 13 and 14 which are as follows :

"12. That the notice under Section 5-A(2) of the Act of 1971 should have been issued to the recorded owner of the property, Sri Munna, and he was the person required to be noticed as per the law and would have effectivel