Back
2019 Supreme(All) 2286
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Ramesh Sinha, Ajit Kumar, JJ.
Chandra Prakash Shivhare - Petitioner
Versus
Union of India And Another - Respondents
Writ - C No. - 46421 of 2006, 24748 of 2019, 57082 of 2017
Decided On : 19-12-2019
For the Petitioner: Pankaj Bhatia, M.I. Farooqui
For the Respondent: A.S.G.I. 2006/2008, Ajai Bhanot, B.N. Singh, K.N. Yadav, Manoj Kumar Singh
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Defense Estate Officer had the jurisdiction to exercise power under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised occupants) Act, 1971 in respect of a property within the municipal limits, and the property in question belonged to the defense department and was considered public premises under the Act.
Headnote:
Public Premises - Property Dispute - Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised occupants) Act, 1971 - Sections 2(c), 2(e), 5A, 5B, 5C - The court discussed the property dispute in the context of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised occupants) Act, 1971. It examined the legal provisions defining public premises, the power to remove unauthorized constructions, the order of demolition of unauthorized construction, and the power to seal unauthorized constructions. The court held that the property in question belonged to the defense department and was considered public premises under the Act. It concluded that the Defense Estate Officer had the jurisdiction to exercise power under the Act and had rightly done so. The court dismissed the writ petition as lacking merit.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner questioned an order passed by the Estate Officer under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised occupants) Act, 1971 and the rejection of the appeal by the District Judge. The property in question was a bungalow situated in an area that was excised from the territorial limits of the cantonment board and brought within the municipal limits. The petitioner had raised construction over the land without necessary approval.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the property belonged to the defense department and was considered public premises under the Act. It held that the Defense Estate Officer had the jurisdiction to exercise power under the Act and had rightly done so. The court dismissed the writ petition as lacking merit.
Issues: The main issues were whether the property ceased to be a defense property with the extension of the municipal limits and whether the Defense Estate Officer had the power to exercise authority under the Act in respect of a property within the municipal limits.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the property in question belonged to the defense department and was considered public premises under the Act. It concluded that the Defense Estate Officer had the jurisdiction to exercise power under the Act and had rightly done so.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition as lacking merit and upheld the orders of the Estate Officer and the District Judge.
JUDGMENT :
Ajit Kumar, J.
1. Since all the three above matters are connected and the relief’s claimed in two matters is on the basis of the pleadings raised and relief claimed in the leading writ petition bearing Writ- C No.- 46421 of 2006, all the three writ petitions are being heard and decided by this common judgment taking Writ- C No.- 46421 of 2006 as leading case.
2. Heard Sri Archit Mandhyan and Sri Ashish Jaiswal learned counsels appearing for the petitioner, Sri O.P. Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the Union of India and Sri Chandra Bhan Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the Cantonment Board.
3. By means of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has questioned the order dated 22nd November, 2001 passed by the Estate Officer, Agra, Cantt. Exercising power under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised occupants) Act, 1971 (for short 'Act, 1971') and the order of the District Judge, Agra, dated 10th August, 2006, whereby appeal of the petitioner under the Act, 1971 has come to be rejected.
4. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the property in question is the land property with construction of a bungalow so recorded as Bungalow No.- 178 situate at Namiyar Mohalla, Ajmer Road, Agra. It has been the property of the Defence department and so recorded as well as a defence property under Defence Land Register. It so happened that the territorial limits of the cantonment board were excised and the area where the bungalow situates was brought within the municipal limits of the then Municipality of Agra, admeasuring 198.303 acres approximately and, accordingly, Ministry of Defence vide Circular No.- 79 dated 9th February,1957 excised the said area from the limits of the cantonment of Agra. With the exclusion of the area including the bungalow from the territorial limits of the cantonment board, Agra, the petitioner being in possession, it appears, applied for sanction of map to raise construction over the land in question before Nagar Mahaplika Parishad, Agra and Nagar Mahapalika Parishad, Agra approved the same on 28th March, 1958. With the approval so granted by the Nagar Mahapalika Parishad, Agra, the petitioner raised construction over the same. On 26th October, 1998, the petitioner was served with a notice under the signature and seal of the Estate officer under the Act, 1971.
5. The petitioner submitted reply asking for certain papers mentioned therein so that he may contest the matter. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a detailed objection to the notice before the Prescribed Authority of Agra Cantt. and requested for recall of the notice dated 11th November, 1998 and dropping of the proceedings. When nothing happened in the matter petitioner approached this Court and this Court vide order dated 27th January, 1999 passed in CMWP No.- 3190 of 1999 directed the prescribed authority to decide the objection of the petitioner and also supply the copies of documents requested by the petitioner. Again when nothing happened, the petitioner filed another petition and this Court vide order dated 8th August, 2001 directed the respondent No.3 to decide the objection of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. In compliance of the above order the prescribed authority under the order dated 22th November, 2001 rejected the objection of the petitioner and held the constructions to be unauthorized without there being any approval of the competent authority and, accordingly, directed for removal of the same. The petitioner then preferred a statutory appeal against the order passed by the prescribed authority and the same has also come to be rejected.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and their arguments raised across the Bar and having perused the record, what we find that the moot question for our consideration in the present case is as to whether a property already recorded as a Defence property within the erstwhi
