Point of law: When we consider the law of adverse possession as has developed vis-a-vis to property dedicated to public use, courts have been loath to confer the right by adverse possession. There are instances when such properties are encroached upon and then a plea of adverse possession is raised. In such cases on the land reserved for public utility, it is desirable that rights should not accrue. The law of adverse possession may cause harsh consequences, hence, we are constrained to observe that it would be advisable that concerning such properties dedicated to public cause, it is made clear in the statute of limitation that no rights can accrue by adverse possession

JUDGMENT :

1. This writ petition has been, inter alia, filed for the following relief:-

"i. Issue a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to restore the construction of the house and pay compensation, which was illegally demolished on 11.8.2020 at 4 p.m. by the respondents in regard to the house of the petitioner situated at 19 Clive Road Civil Lines Prayagraj/Prayagraj."

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Arun Kumar, learned counsel for the Prayagraj Development Authority, learned Standing Counsel for the State and perused the record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had been occupying 2 tin-shed rooms, part of the Premises No. 19, Clive Road, Prayagraj, since long. However, without giving any opportunity of hearing or issuing any notice, the said structure has been demolished by Prayagraj Development Authority (in short 'PDA') illegally and arbitrarily.

4. Per contra, Sri Arun Kumar, learned counsel for the PDA while placing the original records pertaining to demolition proceedings of the disputed structure has submitted that land in question measuring about 100 square yards was illegally occupied by the petitioner, without any right, title or interest. The petitioner has never paid rent/damages whatsoever. It was further submitted that the complaint was received by the PDA with regard to the illegal construction raised by the petitioner on 2.6.2020 on the alleged land. Upon inquiry it was revealed that illegal construction was raised over 100 square yard of land comprising two tin-shed rooms by the petitioner and further construction of walls was also being raised by the petitioner surreptitiously. Notice was issued under Section 27 (1) of the U.P. Urban Planning & Development Act, 1973 (in short 'Act, 1973). When the Development Authority failed to serve the notice upon the petitioner, the notice was affixed in accordance with Section 43 of the Act, 1973 on 4.6.2020 for showing cause, but the petitioner failed to file any reply to the said notice. Thereafter, again the notices were issued on 15.6.2020 & 26.6.2020 but the petitioner failed to respond. Ultimately, the demolition of disputed structure was carried out in accordance with law.

5. It was further submitted by the learned counsel for PDA that earlier, a lease deed with respect to Plot No. 19, Clive Road was executed in favour of M/s Amrit Bazar Patrika Pvt. Ltd. (in short “the Company”) by means of a registered deed on 25.7.1949 by the State of Uttar Pradesh for 50 years from the first day of September 1937. United Bank of India (in short “the Bank”) had advanced credit facilities to the Company and the Company allegedly mortgaged the immovable property situated at 19 Clive Road, Prayagraj, which was earlier leased out by the State Government to it. Since the Company failed to repay the loan, the Bank, for recovery of its dues, filed a Suit No. 510 of 1990 in the Civil Court in the capacity of the mortgagee of the various properties of the said Company including the property situated at 19, Clive Road, Prayagraj, which was held by the Company, allegedly, as lessee. The said suit was decreed on 9.10.1991 in favour of the Bank. It is notable that the paramount title holder namely the State of Uttar Pradesh, was not made a party to the suit. Ultimately, the matter reached the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 5254 of 2010 (State of Uttar Pradesh and others Vs. United Bank of India and others) along with other similar civil appeals arising out of the common judgment and order passed by the court below. The Apex Court allowed the Civil Appeal No. 5254 of 2010 filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh and the impugned judgment and order dated 3.11.2009 passed by the High Court was set aside, inter alia, holding that mortgage done by the lessee Company in favour of the Bank is bad in law, and was in clear violation of the terms of the lease deed i.e. mortgage of the Nazul land without p