This court dismissed a writ petition challenging a rejection of the petitioner's claim for regularization of land possession. The court held that tax deposit alone cannot substitute for a valid legal right to occupy public property when the underlying allotment was cancelled.
Writ petition dismissed; rejection of regularization claim stands upheld.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 21 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 27338 of 2018 Petitioner :- Charan Singh Respondent :- State Of U P And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- C.L. Chaudhary Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Govind Mathur,J. Hon'ble Chandra Dhari Singh,J.
This petition for writ is preferred to question correctness of the order dated 21.05.2018 passed by the Director, Local Body Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh.
Under the office order impugned, respondent no. 2 - the Director, Local Body Department has rejected the claim made by the petitioner in his representation dated 20.09.2016 pertaining to regularization of his possession over the land bearing Khasra No. 363 measuring 0.127 (66/66 fits) situated at Ward No. 8, Lohran Town Hasayan, Tehsil Sikandramau, District Hathras.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is regularly depositing the house tax and, as such, his occupation over the property in question has been validated by the Local Body. In view of this fact, the order impugned dated 21.05.2018 is bad.
We do not find any merit in the arguments advanced.
From perusal of the order impugned, it is apparent that the petitioner admitted the fact that he is having no valid right to occupy the property in question as the allotment of the same has been cancelled much back in the year 1991 by the Nagar Panchayat, Hasayan merely on the count that the petitioner has deposited some tax with the Local Body is not at all sufficient to retain occupation over the property in question. The petitioner is required to have a valid legal right to occupy the public property and, admittedly, no such right in favour of the petitioner exists.
In view of it, the petition for writ is devoid of merit, hence dismissed. Order Date :- 18.8.2018/Shubham
(Chandra Dhari Singh, J.) (Govind Mathur, J.)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether depositing house tax validates occupation of public property lacking legal right to possess?
Charan Singh
State Of U P
2 Others
Govind Mathur
Chandra Dhari Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
