Advocates:
['TAPAN SINGH', '', 'PRABHAT BOHRA', 'SIDDHARTHA SINGH', 'P S BISHT']

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Writ Petition (M/S) No. 3364 of 2016

Mansab Ali

………….Petitioner

Versus

Nagar Panchayat Landhaura and another

……...Respondents

Present :

Mr. Tapan Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. P.S. Bisht, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Siddhartha

Singh, Advocate for respondent no. 1.

Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral)

The petitioner before this Court by means of

the writ petition has sought a writ of mandamus

commanding the respondents not to demolish the

construction of his residential house.

2.

The case of the petitioner is that he has

constructed a house at on a land situated at Khasra No.

384, Mohalla Holi Landhaura, Tehsil Roorkee, District

Haridwar, which earlier was a part of “Gaon Sabha”

Landhaura. Thereafter the land came under the

jurisdiction of Nagar Panchayat Landhaura. At the

relevant time, he received a notice under Section 4 of

the U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised

Occupants) Act, 1972, to which he gave reply and

ultimately the Prescribed Authority found the petitioner

to be in unauthorised occupation and vide order dated

16.04.2005 passed order for his eviction. This order was

challenged by the petitioner in an appeal before the

District Judge, Haridwar.

2

3.

The appeal of the petitioner was allowed by

the learned District Judge merely on technical grounds

such as that the notice which was given to the petitioner

under Section 4 of the U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of

Unauthorised Occupants), 1972 did not elaborate or

disclose the land. The learned District Judge also gave a

finding in favour of the petitioner that the Additional

Sub Divisional Magistrate who has passed the eviction

order was not the Prescribed Authority and all the

proceedings are beyond his jurisdiction.

4.

The order was not passed on the merits of the

case, determining the rights of the petitioner on the land

in dispute. The petitioner is being asked to vacate the

land in question.

4.

The petitioner relies upon the earlier order of

the learned District Judge, Haridwar passed in his

favour in a proceeding initiated against him under U.P.

Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants),

1972. The learned counsel for the petitioner would

argue that there is already a judicial determination in

his favour, as to his rights on the land and the fresh

notices for eviction and demolition are illegal.

5.

In the earlier case the appeal of the petitioner

was allowed on a technicality, such as the validity of the

notice and the jurisdiction of the authority. There was

no determination on the merit of the case. The new

proceedings are therefore not barred.

6.

The relief as sought by the petitioner cannot

be granted in a writ petition. The only remedy available

3

to the petitioner for redressal of his grievances is to

approach a competent civil court. Such is also the

determination of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in

Writ Petition No. 1868 of 2015 decided on 14.03.2019.

7.

In view thereof, writ petition is dismissed. It

is, however, made clear that the subsequent issuance of

notice under Section 4 of the U.P. Public Premises Act

by the Nagar Panchayat would not be barred by the

principles of res judicata.

(Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.)

05.07.2019

Avneet/