STATE OF UTTARAKHAND THROUGH ITS COLLECTOR Vs. JAI PRAKASH ASSOCIATES LIMITED
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
State Of Uttarakhand Through Its Collector
JAI PRAKASH ASSOCIATES LIMITED
Click here to view full 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.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.