Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD (LUCKNOW BENCH)
JASPREET SINGH, J.
Shiv Mangal Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondents
Second Appeal No. 232 of 2012
Decided On : 12-07-2019
Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act – Sections 122-B, 333 – Demolition of Constructions Issue - Sub-section (2) of Section 122-D of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act provides that a person having been once evicted under Section 122-D (1) is liable to be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years and which shall not be less than three months and also with fine which may extend to three thousand rupees
Facts of the case: Whether the defendant Nos. 1 to 7 have any authority to demolish the construction, in the capacity of public servant, without prior notice or under any other law for the time being in force, without ascertaining to the knowledge of the plaintiff that the demolished construction was raised on land Khasra.
Finding of the court: Held, there is no evidence to indicate that the plaintiff had made the payments of the aforesaid bills, neither any receipt from the trader has been issued indicating it having received aforesaid sum nor any bank statement has been brought on record to establish the payment made and as already indicated above there is no document which establishes that the plaintiff had been residing in his pucca construction existed over which he has spent around Rs. 80,000/- as alleged – In view of the detailed discussion this Court is of the considered view that as far as the question of law as framed is concerned it is answered in the affirmative and held that the respondents did not adopt the due process of law while undertaking the demolition, however, as the plaintiff has failed to establish its claim for damages.
Result: Appeal Dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Jaspreet Singh, J.
1. This is the plaintiff's second appeal assailing the judgment and decree dated 16.5.2012, passed in Regular Civil Appeal No. 138/11 whereby the Additional District Judge, Court No. 7, Lucknow, dismissed the aforesaid appeal and the judgment and decree dated 28.5.2011, passed by the Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Court No. 24, Lucknow dismissed the regular suit No. 503/2011 and it is against the aforesaid concurrent judgments that the present second appeal has been preferred.
2. This Court by means of order dated 29.8.2012 admitted the above second appeal on the substantial question of law which is being reproduced hereinafter:--
"Whether the defendant Nos. 1 to 7 have any authority to demolish the construction, in the capacity of public servant, without prior notice under U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act or under any other law for the time being in force, without ascertaining to the knowledge of the plaintiff that the demolished construction was raised on land Khasra No. 60 or land Khasra No. 61?"
3. In order to answer the aforesaid substantial question of law certain facts giving rise to the above second appeal are being noted first. That the plaintiff-appellant instituted regular suit before the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Lucknow registered as R.S. No. 503/2011. In the plaint in suit, the plaintiff-appellant had sought the relief for damages mainly on the ground that the plaintiff was the owner in possession of a "pucca' house constructed over a piece of land measuring 550 square feet, situate in village "abadi' of village Chak Parawa, Post and Pargana Kakori, Tehsil and District Lucknow. It was stated that the aforesaid "pucca' house was situate on Khasra Plot No. 61 which was demolished arbitrarily and without any notice by the defendant Nos. 4 to 7. It was further pleaded that defendants No. 5 to 7 came to the house of the plaintiff on 16.3.2001 at 11:00 a.m. along with other tehsil officials and police officials along with 10 to 15 labourers and demolished the house of the plaintiff without any order or any authority and also without giving any opportunity to show cause. In Paragraphs 6 and 7 it was specifically pleaded that the plaintiff had asked the defendant No. 5 for a copy of an order under which the demolition was being undertaken and it was further stated that the plaintiff requested for some time to ascertain regarding the demolition order but no such time was granted nor any order was shown or given and with the help of the police officials and the labour present, the house of the plaintiff was razed to the ground within four to five hours. It was further stated that the plaintiff approached the SDM Lucknow as well as the District Magistrate on 19.3.2001 complaining against the illegal and arbitrary action of defendant Nos. 5 to 7 which bore no fruits. Thereafter, the plaintiff again requested the Commissioner, Lucknow Division on 20.3.2001 and 23.3.2001, however, no action was taken.
4. It was also stated that the plaintiff had got two rooms constructed over the aforesaid land in question and had spent about Rs. 80,000/- over it coupled with the fact that in the open land/sahan to the plaintiff's house, he had six trees, three of "Jamun' variety and three of Eucaliptus which were also cut by the defendant Nos. 5 to 7 and also a bamboo grove which was cut and destroyed by the defendant Nos. 5 to 7. Thus, for the losses, damages of Rs. 1,00,000/- was claimed. Notice under section 80 was served on the defendants and thereafter the suit seeking damages came to be filed on 18.10.2001.
5. The suit was resisted by the defendant Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5, who filed a joint written statement whereas the defendant Nos. 6 and 8 filed their separate written statement. Primarily, the defence in the written statement of defendants Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 and defendant No. 6 was to the effect that
SupremeToday
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
