IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SUDHIR AGARWAL, VIRENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, JJ.
Hari Babu Jain and 2 Others - Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. and 2 Others - Respondents
Writ - C No. 32687 of 2018
Decided On : 31-10-2019
Constitution of India – Articles 226, 14, 21, 296 – Government of India Act, 1858 – Section 54 –Transfer of Property Act – Sections 106, 116 –Lease issue – No provision could be shown by counsel for petitioners which requires an opportunity of hearing to petitioners before resumption of land. In any case, by means of impugned notice, petitioners have been given enough time to vacate the land and thereafter only State shall take steps for possession, if vacant possession is not given by petitioners.
Facts of the case: Counsel for petitioners sought to argue that petitioners are entitled to be given opportunity in terms of provisions since petitioners are in continued possession after expiry of period of lease and are entitled to be treated as holding over and cannot be evicted without following procedure particularly in view of the fact that GG Act, 1895 has already been repealed –It is contended that even if lease expired possession of petitioners since 1980 has continued on disputed Nazul land and State has not taken any step for their eviction or dispossession, it amounts to 'tacit approval' or 'sanction' by Government or Lessor recognizing petitioners' aforesaid possession to be valid and for this purpose
Finding of the court: Following aforesaid decision in Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation and Ors. vs. Gayatri Construction Company and Anr., 2008 (8) SCC 172 Court has held that in the matter of non-statutory contract, High Court should not have entertained writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution – No provision could be shown by counsel for petitioners which requires an opportunity of hearing to petitioners before resumption of land – In any case, by means of impugned notice, petitioners have been given enough time to vacate the land and thereafter only State shall take steps for possession, if vacant possession is not given by petitioners –In view of above discussion, court do not find any merit in the petition
Result: Petition dismissed
JUDGMENT :
Sudhir Agarwal, J.
1. Heard Sri Nirvikar Gupta, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri Ajit Kumar Singh, Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Nimai Das and Sri Sudhanshu Srivastava, Additional Chief Standing Counsel.
2. This writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed by three petitioners namely Hari Babu Jain, Ajit Kumar Jain and Praveen Kumar Jain, all real brothers and sons of Late Sri Panna Lal, resident of 3-A/3, P.D. Tandon Road, Civil Lines, Allahabad. They have prayed for issue of a writ of certiorari to quash order dated 14.08.2018 (Annexure 1 to the writ petition), passed by District Magistrate, Allahabad communicating that State has exercised right of resumption in respect of Nazul land no.127, Civil Station, Allahabad area 2 acres 3947 Sq. Yards. Letter/notice of aforesaid order is addressed to 21 persons including three petitioners, who are at Serial No.5 in the aforesaid notice.
3. Petitioners have also prayed for issue of a writ of mandamus directing respondents 1 and 2 not to dispossess petitioners from area of 1204.23 Sq. Meters, in Bungalow No.3, P.D.Tandon Road, (Old Kanpur Road), Civil Lines, Allahabad, which is part of Nazul Plot No.127, Civil Station, Allahabad and also not to demolish dwelling house and constructions, superstructures, sheds, office etc., raised by petitioners on the aforesaid land.
4. Facts in brief as set out in writ petition are that Nazul Plot No.127, Civil Station, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as “Disputed Nazul Land”) is a very big plot having area of 2 acres 3947 Sq. Yard i.e. total 11393.53 Sq. Meters. It was initially leased out to one 'E.J.Lazarus' by Secretary of State for India in Council through Collector, District Allahabad vide lease deed dated 02.04.1862. The period of lease was 50 years. After expiry of initial period of 50 years on 01.4.1912, another lease deed was executed on 18.06.1912 for a further period of 50 years and period of lease commenced from 02.4.1912. This lease deed was executed by Secretary of State for India in Council through Collector Allahabad in favour of 'Evelyn Constance Trisham'. The lease was executed for allowing lessee to raise a dwelling house, garden or pleasure grounds. Period of lease expired on 01.4.1962.
5. Disputed Nazul Land was let out by erstwhile lessee i.e. E.C.Trisham to Vishun Nath son of Shambhu Nath and his name was also recorded in Nazul Register. Vishun Nath died in 1958 leaving behind his widow Smt. Jamuna Devi and three sons namely Harihar Nath Dhar, Triloki Nath Dhar, and Sri Dhar. Since lease expired on 01.4.1962, Sri Dhar son of Vishun Nath submitted application dated 04.5.1962 requesting for grant of fresh lease of Disputed Nazul Land. Superintendent Municipal Estates and Nazul Properties, Nagar Mahapalika, Allahabad vide letter dated 26.5.1962 informed him that no subdivision of Disputed Nazul Land would be allowed and all co-lessees have to apply jointly for fresh lease for entire site measuring 2 acres 3947 Sq. Yards. Fresh lease could not be executed, as is evident from letter dated 13.8.1969 sent by Nazul Superintendent, Nagar Mahapalika, Allahabad requiring Smt. Jamuna Devi and Shri Dhar to file affidavit on behalf of all the legal heirs. Heirs of Vishun Nath, however, inducted in 1980, petitioners as tenant over 1204.23 Sq. Yards, allocated in Northern part of P.D.Tandon Road at the rent of Rs.250/-per month. Petitioners raised various constructions etc. over the said land and continuously paid rent to Harihar Nath Dhar, who issued rent receipts being Karta of family. Petitioners constructed wood shop by the main P.D.Tandon Road in which they started a Furniture Showroom in the name of “Shree Digamber Traders”. In the other portion, family members of petitioners were residing. Petitioners are also paying house tax and water tax of property in their possession.
6. S
Hajee S.V.M. Mohd. Jamaludeen Bros. & Co. vs. Govt. of T.N.
State of Andhra Pradesh vs. Kaithala Abhishekam
Union of India and others vs. Harish Chand Anand
Smt. Shakira Khatoon Kazmi and others vs. State of U.P. and others
Azim Ahmad Kazmi and others vs. State of U.P. and others
Anand Kumar Sharma vs. State of U.P. and others
Pierce Leslie and Co. Ltd. Vs. Miss Violet Ouchterlony Wapsnare
State of Rajasthan vs. Sajjanlal Panjawat
Director of Endowments, Govt. of Hyderabad vs. Akram Ali
Sarwarlal vs. State of Hyderabad
Promod Chandra Deb vs. State of Orissa
State of U.P. and others vs. United Bank of India and others
Pradeep Oil Corporation vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and others
Shakira Khatoon Kazmi vs. State of U.P.
The State of U.P. vs. Zahoor Ahmad and Another
Delhi Development Authority Vs. Anant Raj Agencies Pvt. Ltd.
R.V. Bhupal Prasad vs. State of A.P.
Sevoke Properties Ltd. vs. West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd.
Purushottam Dass Tandon and others vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
Shanti Prasad Devi and others vs. Shankar Mahto and others
Bishan Das and others Vs. State of Punjab and others
Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. and others Vs. Union of India
Lallu Yeshwant Singh (dead) by his legal representative vs. Rao Jagdish Singh and others
Wazir Chand Vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh
State of Orissa Vs. Ram Chandra Dev
Mohammed Hanif Vs. State of Assam
Lala Kishun Chand vs. Sheo Dutta
Bhawanji Lakhanishi vs. Himatlal Jamnadas
Pritilata Devi vs. Banke Bihari Lal
Ashoka Marketing Ltd. and another v. Punjab National Bank and others
Sarup Singh Gupta vs. S. Jagdish Singh and others
State of Gujarat and Ors. vs. Meghji Pethraj Shah Charitable Trust and Ors.
Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation and Ors. vs. Gayatri Construction Company and Anr.
Raja Rajinder Chand v. Mst. Sukhi
Nayak Vajesingji Joravarsingji v. Secretary of State for India in Council
Dalmia Dadri Cement Co. Ltd. v. CIT
Amarsarjit Singh v. State of Punjab
Thakur Amar Singhji v. State of Rajasthan
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.