- (1.) ARUN Tandon, J. Heard Sri I. H. Khan on behalf of the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel on behalf of the respondents.
(2.) ASSISTANT Engineer, Public Works Department, Ghaziabad moved an application dated 27th March, 1980 in the Court of Registrar, Ghaziabad, who is the Prescribed Authority under the provisions of U. P. Urban Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972 (hereinafter Act No. 22 of 1972) against the petitioner with the allegations that the petitioner has encroached upon 10 squire yards at 22 Kilometers on National Highway and as such is an unauthorized occupant of the same and appropriate order for his eviction may be passed and further a sum of Rs. 400 was prayed for as damages. The said application was registered as Misc. Application No. 8112 of 1982. After notices having been issued to petitioner and after hearing the parties concerned, the Prescribed Authority by means of judgment and order dated 14th June, 1983 held that the petitioner was in unauthorized occupation of the land of the Public Works Department, as mentioned in the application, and consequently directed eviction of the petitioner from the same. The petitioner was also directed to pay a sum of Rs. 400/- as damages with a further condition that he shall continue to pay a sum of Rs. 30 per month as damages till he is actually physically evicted from the land which is in his unauthorized occupation. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Prescribed Authority, the petitioner preferred an appeal in the Court of District Judge Ghaziabad, which was numbered as Misc. Appeal No. 83 of 1984. The learned District Judge by means of order dated 21st April, 1986 dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. It is against the aforesaid two order, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner.
(3.) ON behalf of the petitioner it has been fairly conceded that only one ground was pressed in the appeal before the learned District Judge namely whether Rule 7 of the U. P. Road Side Control Act, 1945 applicable to the facts of the case, which was relevant for the purposes of determining as to whether petitioner was in unauthorized possession of the land of the Public Works Department or not. The said contention raised on behalf of the petitioner has been negatived by the learned District Judge after recording a specific finding that the provisions; of Rule 7 of the U. P. Road Side Control Act were applicable and further the appellant has encroached upon an area by 15 x 6 feet of the road i. e. the land of the Public Works Department. The learned District Judge also recorded a finding that the damages awarded are not excessive. On behalf of the petitioner it is contended that the said finding of the learned District Judge cannot be successfully assailed before this Court. However, the petitioner, on various facts and pleas as are alleged to be borne out from the order passed by the Prescribed Authority, submits that the order passed by the Prescribed Authority as well as by the learned District Judge be set aside.;