Decided on May 13,2013

Intezar Hussain Appellant


PRAFULLA C.PANT, J. - (1.) BY means of this petition, moved under Article 226/227 of Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged order dated 03.08.2007, passed by respondent No.5 (Prescribed Authority/City Magistrate, Haldwani), whereby said authority has held that it has jurisdiction to proceed with the proceedings against the petitioners under Uttar Pradesh Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1972. The question involved in this case is whether the petitioners are tenure holders, governed under any tenancy law, or is their occupation being over the Nazul land is governed by Uttar Pradesh Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1972?
(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties, and perused the affidavit, counter affidavit, rejoinder affidavit and supplementary affidavit, filed in this case. Briefly stated petitioners case is that the petitioners' grand father Imtiaz Hussain, was a grove holder over the disputed land measuring 64 Bigha 14 Biswa of land, situated in Haldwani Khas. It is alleged by the petitioners that copies of khasra of the years 1320 Fasli and 1331 Fasli (calendar year 1913 -14 and 1924 -25), which are annexed as Annexures -1 and 2 to the writ petition, show that the petitioners' predecessors in title were recorded as the grove holders. It is further alleged that as per the revenue record in the years 1383 Fasli, 1384 Fasli, 1385 Fasli,1386 Fasli, 1387 Fasli, 1390 Fasli, 1391 Fasli, 1392 Fasli, 1393 Fasli, 1394 Fasli, 1395 Fasli and 1396 Fasli, the names of predecessors in title of the petitioners were recorded in Class 12 (land held by grove holder). Annexure -3 is copy of Jot Vahi (account of ledger of agricultural land), issued in favour of the petitioners by the authorities in respect of land in suit. The land in suit bears plots (khasra) No. 820, 829, 830, 832, 834, 835, 836, 837, 839, 844, 845, 847, 848, 849, 850, 851, 852, 853 and 856. In the writ petition it is further stated that the petitioners are in cultivatory possession of the land where 100 fruit bearing trees of mangoes are standing. There are also six out houses of the agricultural peasants/labourers in the land.
(3.) IT is also stated by the petitioners in the writ petition that in the year 2005, when the petitioners came to know that the officers of the Government want to get vacated the land in suit from the petitioners, they filed writ petition No. 1152 of 2005 (M/B) in which, an interim order was passed. In pursuance of said order, the petitioners made a representation (copy Annexure -7 to the present writ petition) to the Government which was rejected by the Government vide order dated 17.02.2006 (Annexure­8 to the writ petition). On this, petitioners filed a civil suit No. 08 of 2006, which is pending before Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) in which an interim injunction (copy Annexure -10 to the writ petition) was passed by the Civil Court. However, now the respondents, claiming the land in question to be a 'nazul' land (land owned by Government and administered by Municipal authorities since British period) have initiated the proceedings under U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1972, against the petitioners. It appears that on this, another writ petition No. 1838 of 2006, challenging the show cause notice under said Act, was filed which was disposed of vide order dated 18.12.2006, passed by this Court. In pursuance of said order, objections were filed by the petitioners before the Prescribed Authority, as to the maintainability of the proceedings, which are rejected by the impugned order challenged in this writ petition.;

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