IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
SHARAD KUMAR SHARMA, J.
State of Uttarakhand through Collector Champawat – Appellant
Versus
Prescribed Authority (Eviction)/UpZila Adhikari and Another - Respondents
Writ-Petition (M/S) No.589 of 2011
Decided on : 02-08-2023
U.P. Public Premises - Unauthorized Occupants - U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1972, Section 4/5
Fact of the Case:
The State filed a writ petition against the judgment of the District Judge, Champawat, which allowed the appeal of an alleged unauthorized occupant under Section 4/5 of the U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1972. The dispute revolved around whether the land in question was public premises.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the land in question fell under the definition of public premises as per the Act. The Prescribed Authority had initially directed the eviction of the unauthorized occupant, but the Appellate Court reversed the decision without logical reasoning.
Issues: The main issue was whether the land in dispute qualified as public premises under the Act. The Court also considered the validity of the notice issued under Section 4/5 of the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the land, as per the evidence, was public premises and the Appellate Court's decision lacked logical reasoning and did not reverse the findings of the Prescribed Authority.
Final Decision: The judgment of the Appellate Court was quashed, and the matter was remitted back to the District Court for reconsideration.
JUDGMENT :
The writ petition has been preferred by the State as against the impugned judgment rendered by the Court of District Judge, Champawat, on 21.09.2010 in Appeal No.12 of 2009, whereby the appeal preferred by the alleged unauthorized occupant under Section 4/5 of the U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1972 has been allowed and, as a consequence thereto, the judgment of the Prescribed Authority dated 30.04.2009 has been set aside, thereby resulting into turning down the proceedings under Section 4/5 of the U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1972.
2. Before dealing with the basic facts, a backdrop of the basic issue, as to whether at all the land in question happens to be a public land, over which any right could at all be vested to respondent no.2-Mohini Devi is a fact, which is required to be considered by this Court.
3. For the purpose of initiation of the proceeding under Section 4(1) of the U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1972, the basic premise is that the property has had to be a “public premises”, as it has been defined under the Act, itself i.e. in its Sub-section (e) of Section 2, it would be inclusive of any premise, which belongs to or taken on lease or requisitioned by or on behalf of the State Government, and includes any classes of premises belonging to or taken on lease as it has been provided under the sub-clauses to the definition of public premises provide sub-section (e) of Section 2 of the Act. The definition of Public Premises as defined under Section 2(e) of the Act is extracted hereunder:-
(i) any company as defined in Section 3 of the Companies Act, 1956 in which not less than fifty-one per cent of the paid up share capital is held by the State Government; or
(ii) any local authority; or
(iii) any Corporation (not being a company as defined in Section 3 of the Companies Act, 1956 or a local authority) owned or controlled by the State Government; or
(iv) any society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, the governing body whereof consists, under the rules or regulations of the society, wholly of public officers or nominees of the State Government, or both;
and also includes—
(i) Nazul land or any other premises entrusted to the management of a local authority (including any building built with Government funds on land belonging to the State Government after the entrustment of the land to that local authority, not being land vested in or entrusted to the management of a Gaon Sabha or any other local authority under any law relating to land tenures);
(ii) any premises acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with the consent of the State Government for a company (as defined in that Act) and held by that company under an agreement executed under 41 of that Act providing for re-entry by the State Government in certain conditions;
[but does not include, the Public Premises which are under the Administrative control of the Estate Department and which are occupied by,--
(a) a Minister of the Government of Uttar Pradesh or a person given rank of a minister;
(b) a Member of Parliament, a Member of Legislative Assembly or the Legislative Council of Uttar Pradesh;
(c) a non-Government organization, whether incorporated or registered or not:
(d) a political party not recognized by the Election Commission of India;
(e) a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, a trust registered under the Indian Trusts Act, 1888 or any Trade Union registered under the Trade Unions Act or any employees' association or any body of persons, whether incorporated or not.
(f) any outfit or frontal or other organization of a Political Party,whether recognized or not;
(g) any person who is not government servant, or who i
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the definition of public premises under the U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1972 and the re....
The central legal point established is the determination of the applicability of the U.P. Public Premises Act and the UPZA&LR Act to the disputed land, based on their definitions and relevant notific....
The judgment emphasized the importance of compliance with legal provisions for eviction notices and highlighted the need for specific retrospective provisions in legislation to take away protected ri....
Eviction proceedings under the Public Premises Act cannot resolve bona fide title disputes, which must be adjudicated in a civil court, ensuring respect for legal authority and due process.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the petitioners failed to establish their title over the land and were in unauthorized occupation, leading to the dismissal of the petition.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the authorities under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupations) Act, 1971, are not empowered to decide complicated questions ....
The necessity for eviction must be justified in addition to establishing unauthorized occupation under the Public Premises Act, as reaffirmed by prior judicial interpretations.
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.