Disposed

Mohammad Sabir and 5 Others v. Union of India and 6 Others

Allahabad HC14 Dec 2018WRIC/41040/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging the eviction of petitioners from public premises for running a dairy business. The court disposed of the petition granting liberty to apply for alternative land without directing authorities to allot it, leaving eviction powers intact post-deadline.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to petitioners to apply to Cantonment Board and State Government for alternative land; no direction to authorities to allot land.

Mohammad Sabir and 5 Others Vs Union of India and 6… — Landlord and Tenant | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 32

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 41040 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Mohammad Sabir And 5 Others Respondent :- Union Of India And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vikas Pandey,Smriti Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,C.S.C.,Satish Kumar Rai

¶4

Hon'ble Shashi Kant Gupta,J. Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

¶5

Heard Ms. Smriti Kartikeya, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Satish Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the respondent no.4, Sri Ashish Kumar, learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 3, learned Standing Counsel and perused the record.

¶6

By means of the present writ petition, the petitioners have sought for the following reliefs:-

¶7

"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding/directing the respondents and their subordinates etc. not to evict the petitioners from the land in possession except in accordance with law and/or without obtaining eviction order under Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971.

¶8

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding/directing the respondents to provide the alternate suitable palace to the petitioners before evicting them from the premises which is in possession of the petitioners to run their dairy business."

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioners would be satisfied, if they are given liberty to make an application to the Cantonment Board and the State Government, seeking an alternative land/site for running their dairy business. He submits that insofar as the present land/site, where the petitioners are running their dairy business, is concerned, the petitioners shall either shift or close down their business on or before 31.03.2019 and the petitioners would not have any objection, if they do not do so, for taking coercive action against them by the respondents. In other words, he submits that under any circumstances, whether they get an alternative land/site or not, they shall not continue to run their dairy business at the existing land/site and they shall vacate and handover possession of the land/site in dispute to the respondent-Cantonment Board on or before 31.03.2019.

¶10

In view thereof, we dispose of this writ petition, with liberty to the petitioners to make an application to the Cantonment Board as well as to the State Government, seeking an alternative land/site for shifting their dairy business from the existing land/site. If the petitioners make such application, the concerned authorities may consider the same strictly in accordance with law. While making this observation, we shall not be understood to have issued any direction as such to the concerned authorities in respect of allotment of alternative land/site. It is needless to mention that after 31.03.2019, if the petitioners continue their dairy business at the existing land/site, it would be open to the concerned authorities to use force with police aid to stop their dairy business and to remove them from the land/site in dispute.

¶11

The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of .

¶12

Order Date :- 14.12.2018 JK Yadav

Mohammad Sabir and 5 Others v. Union of India and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammad Sabir and 5 Others v. Union of India and 6 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

Mohd. Farhan Vs State of U.P. and 02 others

M/S Prashant Kumar and Brothers and Another Vs Union of India and 4 Others

Punya Prakash Tiwari Vs State of U P and 3 Others

Sunita Devi Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Heera Lal Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Pankaj Tiwari and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others