Dismissed

Dheeraj Singh and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC11 Jul 2018WRIC/22774/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Dismissing Writ Petition No. 22774 of 2018, the Court held that petitioners failed to comply with an earlier order redeeming arrears within ten days despite previous allotments of shops. Consequently, the District Magistrate was fully justified in treating occupants as unauthorized. The order directing vacatur and rent recovery was found to have no illegality or infirmity and the petition was dism

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; order of District Magistrate quashing vacatur and rent demand affirmed as lawful.

Dheeraj Singh and 3 Others Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 32

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 22774 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Dheeraj Singh And 3 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shashi Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Shashi Kant Gupta,J. Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.

¶5

This writ petition, inter alia, has been filed seeking quashing of the impugned four orders dated 20.6.2018 passed by the Respondent No. 2, District Magistrate, Etah against the Petitioners No. 1 to 4 directing them to vacate the Shops No. 5, 2, 10 and 6 respectively which were earlier allotted to the petitioners and to deposit their arrears of rent along with interest failing which the petitioners would be forcibly evicted and the demand/arrears of rent would be recovered as arrears of land revenue.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel and perused the record.

¶7

It is notable that the petitioners against the cancellation of allotment of shops had earlier filed a Writ C No. 11458 of 2011 and this Court taking a lenient view of the matter passed the following order dated 24.2.2011:-

¶8

"Argument is that petitioners were ready to deposit the rent amount but that was never accepted.

¶9

It is further submitted that so far as premium amount is concerned, that has been deposited by all the petitioners and if a week time is granted for deposit towards rent amount by the petitioner, they will deposit the same.

¶10

The order of cancellation is only on the ground that the rent has not been deposited.

¶11

Be as it may, on these facts, respondents are to file counter affidavit on or before the next date.

¶12

List this matter in the week commencing 04.04.2011.

¶13

On the facts, it is provided as an interim measure that respondent no.4 will permit the petitioners to deposit the amount of rent pursuant to the demand notice and if that is

¶14

done within ten days from today.

¶15

It is made clear that protection in no case will continue beyond the period for which, shops were allotted unless period is otherwise extended in accordance with law by the competent authority for which, no direction/expression on merit is there."

¶16

Despite the specific order passed by this Court granting further time to deposit the demand/rent pursuant to demand notice within ten days from the date of the order, the petitioners failed to comply with the order of this Court dated 24.2.2011, as such, the District Magistrate, Etah by a detailed order dated 20.6.2018, giving cogent and convincing reasons, has directed the petitioners to vacate the shops in questions treating them as unauthorized occupants failing which they would be liable to be evicted forcibly. Petitioners were further directed to deposit the entire outstanding amount failing which the amount would be recovered as arrears of land revenue.

¶17

The aforesaid fact clearly shows that despite the leniency shown by this Court while passing the order dated 24.2.2011, the petitioners have not shown any respect to the order passed by this Court and they are keeping the shops in their occupancy for the last so many years without depositing the due rent. It is also notable that the shops in question were earlier allotted only for one year and thereafter neither any application for renewing the allotment was made nor the period was extended.

¶18

Since the allotment of shops in question was neither renewed nor the period was extended, for last several years, outstanding amount/arrears towards demand/rent have also not been deposited, the District Magistrate, Etah was fully justified in passing the impugned order dated 20.6.2018.

¶19

In view of the above, we do not see any illegality and infirmity in the order passed by the District Magistrate, Etah.

¶20

The petition is devoid of merit and hence dismissed.

¶21

Order Date :- 11.7.2018 vinay

Dheeraj Singh and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dheeraj Singh and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Awadh Narayan Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Atul Prashant Tyagi Vs District and Session Judge and 5 Others

M/S Parikshit Nirmanak Contractor Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Amar Jyoti Janhit Karyanri Samiti Vs Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. and 2 Others

Manoj Kumar Agarwal Vs Managing Director Axis Bank and 2 Others

Hari Shankar Prasad Vs State of U P and 5 Others