SHRUTI DHAR TRIPATHI Vs. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA AND ANOTHER
LAWS(ALL)-2015-7-381
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on July 09,2015

Shruti Dhar Tripathi Appellant
VERSUS
Government Of India And Another Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) This petition seeks the quashing of the order dated 30 June 2015 passed by the Estate Officer of the Meerut Cantonment Board, Cantonment Board under sub-section (2) of section 5-A of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, the Act directing the petitioner to remove immovable the structures/fixtures. A notice dated 30 October 2013 was issued to the petitioner to remove the immovable structures or show cause by 7 November 2013 why a direction for removal of such immovable structures/fixtures from the premises bearing House No.182-183 Dal Mandi, Sadar, Meerut Cantt. may not be issued. The petitioner filed objections on 21 November 2013.
(2.) The case of the Cantonment Board was that site comprising GLR Survey No.357/1110 is classified as B-3 land admeasuring 504 sq. feet and properly described as House No.182-183, Dal Mandi, Sadar, Meerut Cantt. The holder of the occupancy right is mentioned as Chanda son of Jewan Barbar on Old Grant terms. The Assistant Engineer reported that unauthorised construction in a part of House No.182-183 was done without any prior permission of the competent authority and without any right, title or interest as it was recorded as B-3, Defence Land in the name of Chanda. On a consideration of the notice, the reply filed by the petitioner and the documents on record, the Estate Officer found as a fact that the provisions of the Act were applicable to the building and that the petitioner was not the holder of occupancy rights in the property. The Estate Officer also found that the constructions had been raised without any authority or sanction and even otherwise, the petitioner had no locus and was merely a trespasser. The Estate Officer also recorded a finding that the petitioner had constructed altogether new unauthorised constructions starting from the foundation with RCC pillars and RCC beams. The constructions, having been found to be unauthorised, were accordingly directed to be removed.
(3.) The petitioner has contended that the assessment orders of the property are in the name of Munna son of Kanhaiya Lal and the petitioner had purchased the property. It is also his contention that Maya Devi had filed Original Suit No.1504 of 2013 against the Cantonment Board in which an order of status quo was passed on 9 December 2014. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted.;


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