SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2018 Supreme(UK) 52

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
K.M. JOSEPH, U.C. DHYANI, JJ.
Rakesh Kumar Chauhan - Appellant
Versus
Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited and others - Respondents
Special Appeal No. 1094 of 2017
Decided on : 08-01-2018

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Tapan Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. V.K. Kohli, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Kanti Ram Sharma

The court upheld the validity of the eviction order and affirmed BHEL's ownership of the property acquired in 1962.

Headnote:

Eviction - Property Dispute - Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 - [K.M. JOSEPH, J.] - [Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971] - [Summary: The court dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant, who claimed ownership of a property that was acquired by the State for the respondents (BHEL) in 1962. The court found that the property was vested with BHEL and that the appellant's objections to the eviction order were rejected. The court held that there was no reason to grant relief to the appellant.]

Fact of the Case:

The appellant filed a writ petition challenging a notice affixed on the property by the Estate Management of Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited (BHEL). The appellant claimed to have purchased the property and raised construction on it, but BHEL had acquired the property in 1962. The appellant's objections to the eviction order were rejected, and the writ petition was dismissed.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the property was acquired by BHEL in 1962 and that the appellant's objections to the eviction order were rejected. The court held that there was no reason to grant relief to the appellant.

Issues: Ownership of the property, validity of the eviction order, rejection of appellant's objections

Ratio Decidendi: The property was acquired by BHEL in 1962, and the appellant's objections to the eviction order were rejected. The court found no reason to grant relief to the appellant.

Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed without any order as to cost, without prejudice to any remedy in law available to the appellant.

JUDGMENT :

K.M. JOSEPH, J.

Appellant is the writ petitioner. The writ petition was filed calling in question the notice dated 16.06.2014 affixed on the property of the appellant/writ petitioner by the third respondent. The third respondent, it may be noted, is the Estate Management, Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited (hereinafter referred to as the “BHEL”). The case of the appellant/writ petitioner, in brief, is as follows:

By sale deed dated 29.10.2007, the appellant/writ petitioner purchased property from one Vijay Singh. The extent of the property is 6500 Sq. Ft. i.e. 604.08 Sq. Mtrs. residential plot. It is alleged that it falls in Khasra No. 2272/2. The appellant/writ petitioner has raised construction over the plot and has obtained the water and electricity connection. The appellant/writ petitioner claims that he was the tenant of Shri Vijay Singh, the vendor. BHEL/respondent nos. 1 and 2 filed O.S. No. 105 of 2000 before the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Haridwar for temporary injunction in respect of property covered by Khasra Nos. 2269, 2270, 2272/2, 2272/3 (new Khasra Nos. 524, 525, 526, 527, 528) on the ground that it was acquired by BHEL. The temporary injunction was rejected. It is alleged that the Sub General Manager (Estate), BHEL filed an application addressed to SDM, Haridwar dated 07.02.1997 for the measurement of land situated in Khasra Nos. 527, 528, 529, 530 and 531. The measurement was done and Annexure No. 8 report was filed. On the rejection of the temporary injunction application, a Misc. Civil Appeal was filed, which was dismissed holding that out of total area of old Khasra No. 2272/2, only 10 biswa land was acquired while 1 biswa land is claimed by the defendant. The Suit came to be withdrawn unconditionally without seeking permission to file fresh. It is alleged further that the third respondent initiated proceedings under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971. The Estate Officer passed an order on 26.08.2000 for eviction. Shri Vijay Singh filed Civil Appeal No. 36 of 2000. The Appellate Authority allowed the appeal and the matter was remanded back to decide the matter afresh. Subsequently, it is not in dispute that the Eviction Order was passed. Thereafter, it is stated that the impugned notice was affixed on the outer wall of the appellant/writ petitioner. The appellant/writ petitioner filed objections and the appellant/writ petitioner was before the learned Single Judge. Counter affidavit was filed in the writ petition. Paragraph nos. 6 and 9 of the same read as follows:

“6. That with regard to para 4 of the writ petition, the contention of the petitioner that he raised the construction on the plot so purchased and obtained the water connection, electricity connection etc., is entirely incorrect. The alleged papers pertaining to water connection and electricity connection have got no concern with the land in question. Moreover, as per the contention of the petitioner, he had purchased the land through alleged sale deed dated 29.10.2007, whereas Annexure No. 3 Page No. 42 of the writ petition is the meter sealing certificate dated 07.10.1992. Similarly, page No. 43 of the writ petition pertains to bill of water charges issued by Nagar Palika Parishad, Haridwar and it is dated 30.11.2000, whereas the petitioner’s contention is that he had purchased the land and got the connection after purchase of the alleged land having being purchased on 29.10.2007. Even otherwise, the water bills or the electricity bills filed by the petitioner do not show that the same pertain to the land in dispute. Moreover, the water connection or electricity connection does not confer any right of ownership upon any person. It is not admitted that the petitioner has raised the construction on the alleged plot of land. The petitioner has not filed any document in support of his contention. Even otherwise, the petitioner raising the construction on the land which was acquired by the Government, is an i





























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top