STATE OF UTTARAKHAND THROUGH ITS COLLECTOR Vs. JAI PRAKASH ASSOCIATES LIMITED
LAWS(UTN)-2013-7-66
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Decided on July 04,2013

State Of Uttarakhand Through Its Collector Appellant
VERSUS
JAI PRAKASH ASSOCIATES LIMITED Respondents

JUDGEMENT

HONBLE B.S.VERMA, J. - (1.) HEARD Mr. B.D. Kandpal, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State and Mr. V.K. Kohli, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Kanti Ram, learned counsel for the respondent.
(2.) BY means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned judgment and order dated 10.6.2009 passed by District Judge, Tehri in Misc. Civil Appeal No.03 of 2009 Jai Prakash Associates Ltd. vs. State of Uttarakhand (Annexure -10 to the writ petition).
(3.) BRIEF facts of the case are that Collector Tehri filed a chalani report before the Prescribed Authority Tehri against the respondent company alleging therein that the respondent has made an illegal encroachment upon government land of village Khand and Bagi by constructing guest house, office, godown etc. and is earning profit @ Rs.1,61,67,600/ - per annum and prayed for eviction and realization of mesne profit. Upon this, an eviction case no.21/2008 was registered under the U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act (for short, the Act) and a notice u/s 4 was issued on 26.12.2008 fixing 20.1.2009 for filing objection. The case was contested by the respondent company by filing written statement/objection. After hearing both the parties, learned Prescribed Authority passed judgment dated 28.4.2009 ordering eviction of the respondent company. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent company filed an appeal before District Judge, Tehri Garhwal. By judgment and order dated 20.10.2009, learned District Judge, allowed the appeal of the respondent company. The learned appellate court, in page -5 of its judgment, observed as follows: - "From perusal of order -sheet of the Trial Court file, it is very much clear that till 22.4.2009, after filing written statement an application to implead THDC as necessary party was also moved and on that point the argument was heard by the Prescribed Authority and case was fixed for order on 28.4.2009 on the application, on which date the matter was finally decided by him. The record of trial court clearly shows that after filing chalani report and after receiving the written statement of OP, no opportunity to file evidence in support of their case was given to either side. The matter was decided by Prescribed Authority simply believing the chalani report submitted by the Collector, without ascertaining the fact whether the OP/appellant was in illegal occupation of any land or not. He has not taken into consideration the defence raised by the OP." Feeling aggrieved, State has filed the present writ petition.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.