Back
2006 Supreme(UK) 499
2007 UAD 1
UTTARANCHAL HIGH COURT
Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.S. Verma
Writ Petition No. 4741 (M/S) of 2001
RAJENDRA KUMAR – Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF U.P. & ORS. – Respondents
Decided on : 05.09.2006
For Petitioner: Sri Sarvesh Agarwal, learned counsel
For the Respondents: Sri R.C. Arya, learned Standing Counsel
Headnote:U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972, Secs. 4(1), 5, 9 and U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, Secs. 3(14), 229-B — Applicability of — Petitioners found to have been growing crops over land in dispute — Thus, they were in occupation of agricultural land as tenure holder for time being — Provisions of U.P. Act No. XII of 1972 not applicable to agricultural land in view of conjoin reading of definitions of "premises" and "public premises" under U.P. Act No. XII and of "Land" under U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act — State to proceed for eviction of petitioners under provisions of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act and other allied laws inforce — Petitioners to get their title declared by filing suit under Sec. 229-B of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act — Provided they establish their stand before Revenue Court. (Para 6)
mdizd ljdkjh LFkku ¼vukf/kdr n[kydkjksa dh csn[kyh½ vf/kfu;e] 1972] /kkjk;sa 4¼1½] 5] 9 rFkk mdizd tehankjh mUewyu ,oa Hkwfe O;oLFkk vf/kfu;e] 1950] /kkjk;sa& 3¼14½] 229&ch & ykxw gksuk & ;kphx.k fookfnr Hkwfe ij Qly mxkrs ik;s x;s & vr,o og df"k Hkwfe ds vf/kHkksx esa ml le; Hkw/kkjd dh rjg Fkk & mdizd vf/kfu;e la[;k XII ds vUrxZr ßifjljÞ rFkk ßljdkjh LFkkuÞ o mdizd tadmd rFkk Hkwdlqd vf/kfu;e ds vUrxZr ßHkwfeÞ dh ifjHkk"kkvksa dk la;qDr voyksdu ds n`f"Vxr mdizd vf/kfu;e la[;k&12 lu~ 1972 ds izko/kku df"k Hkwfe ij ykxw ugha gksaxs & jkT; ;kphx.k dh csn[kyh ds fy;s mdizd tadmd ,oa Hkwdlqd vf/kfu;e rFkk vU; lEcfU/kr izHkkoh fofèk;ksa ds izko/kkuksa ds vUrxZr dk;Zokgh djs & ;kphx.k viuh vf/kdkfjrk dh ?kks"k.kk èkkjk&229&ch mdizd tadmd ,oa Hkwdlqd vf/kfu;e ds vUrxZr okn nk;j djds djk;s & ijUrq ;fn og jktLo U;k;ky; ds le{k viuh fLFkfr LFkkfir dj ldsA ¼izLrj 6½
Heard Sri Sarvesh Agarwal learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri R.C. Arya learned Standing counsel for the State.
2. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the orders dated 23.8.1993 and 17.9.1992 passed by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 i.e. District Magistrate, Nainital and Prescribed Authority/Sub Divisional Magistrate respectively.
3. Brief facts of the case are that a notice under Section 4(1) of the U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized occupants) Act, 1992 was sent to the petitioner stating that the petitioner is an unauthorized occupant. The petitioner filed objection against the said notice. The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate passed the order on 17.9.1992 by which he directed the dispossession of the petitioner from the land in dispute. Against the said order dated 17.9.1992, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the District Judge. The appellate Court rejected the petitioner appeal vide order date 23.8.1993.
4. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the petitioner preferred this petition before the Allahabad High Court, which has been transferred to this Court, for disposal, after creation of new State.
5. I have heard the submissions of the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents - State and Sri Sarvesh Agarwal learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
6. At the outset, it may be mentioned that this Court vide judgment delivered today i.e. on 25.5.2006 in Writ Petition No. 3235 (M/S) of 2001 Krishna Kant Vs. Ist Additional District Judge Nainital and others along with 42 others writ petitions have already considered the controversy involved in the present writ petition. All the 43 writ petitions preferred by different petitioners were allowed by that common judgment and it was held that the provisions of the U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants Act, 1972 were not applicable to the agricultural land and its was open to the State to proceed for eviction of the petitioners under the provisions of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act/KUZA Act and other allied laws in force. It was also observed therein that the petitioners may also get their title declared by filing suit under Section 229-B of the Z.A. and L.R. Act/KUZA Act provided they establish their stand before the Revenue Court. The learned Standing Counsel fairly conceded that the present petition is squarely covered by the said judgment.
7. In view of the fact that this Court has already decided as many as 43 similar writ petition by a common judgment today, there is no need to repeat the same material again in the case at hand. The present writ petition is fully covered by the Judgment passed in Writ Petition No. 3235 (M/S) of 2001, Krishna Kant Vs. Ist Additional District Judge, Nainital and others along with 42 other writ petitions decided by this Court on 25.5.2006 itself. This writ petition deserves to be allowed on merit in terms of the said judgment.
8. The present writ petition stands allowed in terms of the judgment passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 3235 (M/S) of 2001. Krishna Kant Vs. Ist Additional District Judge, Nainital. No order as to costs.
