Disposed

Girija Shankar and 11 Others v. Union of India and 3 Others

Allahabad HC19 Jul 2019WRIC/23155/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge Bench disposed of a writ petition seeking quashing of eviction notices and directions restraining demolition of petitioner houses. The Court observed that petitioners should not be evicted from disputed premises except in due course of law without expressing an opinion on the merits.

What did the court decide?

Direction that petitioners shall not be evicted from disputed premises except in due course of law.

Girija Shankar and 11 Others Vs Union of India and 3 Others — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 32 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 23155 of 2019

¶2

Petitioner :- Girija Shankar And 11 Others Respondent :- Union Of India And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Neerad Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- Navneet Chandra Tripathi,Rajnish Kumar Rai,Vikash Chandra Tripathi

¶3

Hon'ble Shashi Kant Gupta,J. Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.

¶4

Heard Sri Shashi Nandan, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Neerad Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Navneet Chandra Tripathi, learned counsel for the Respondents No. 1, 3 and 4, Sri Rajnish Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 2 and perused the record.

¶5

This writ petition, inter alia, has been filed for the following reliefs:

¶6

"(A) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the notices dated 05-07-2019 pasted on petitioners houses on 0607-2019 and no action for dispossession and demolition of houses be taken on the basics of the aforesaid notices in garb of judgment and order dated 16-11-2016 passed in First Appeal No. 98 of 1998, Railway Electrification and others Versus Smt. Malti Devi and Others, (Annexure-12).

¶7

(B) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents nos. 1 to 4 not to harass and adopt coercive method against the petitioners in their peacefull

¶8

possession in their houses situated over the land in dispute and further be pleased not to dispossess the petitioners from their own houses by demolishing the same.

¶9

(C) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to harass and demolish the houses of the petitioners without adopting legal process and proper survey on the basics of revenue records and settlements of revenue Khatauni and revenue map (with the help of Zarib and Chain and in presence of respondents No. 4) and possession handed over and taken by the respondents on 20-3-1950 giving proper opportunity of hearing."

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioners stated that the petitioners are bonafide purchasers of the land in dispute. They are owners of the houses constructed over the land in dispute. Since the date of purchase i.e. for the last more than 51 years, the petitioners are residing with their family members over the land in dispute. It was further submitted that the Petitioners No. 1, 2 and 3 had purchased the land, as its description measurement and boundaries given in their sale deeds dated 5.7.1968, from its previous owner late Babu Phool Chand Advocate, who was recorded a tenure holder of Arazi No. 126 M area 15 Biswa 18 Dhoor. After the purchase of the land in dispute, the petitioners filed the mutation applications to mutate their names in place of the vendor before Tehsildar Chail, Allahabad (now Sadar), District Allahabad. Thereafter, statements of the petitioners were recorded by the official of the Respondent No. 4, Collector, Allahabad and after completion of all the formalities, the names

¶11

of the petitioners were recorded/mutated in revenue records i.e. Khatauni and Khasra.

¶12

It was next submitted that after long lapse of time, the Respondent No. 4 filed Case No. 1353 of 1976 (State Vs. Girija Shankar), Case No. 1354 of 1976 (State Vs. Virendra Narain) and Case No. 1345 (State Vs. Triloki Nath Srivastava) under Section 4 of Public Premises Act, which was contested by petitioners by filing written statements and evidence. The state authority, Respondent No. 4 also gave its evidence and examined its one of the officers late Jagat Narian Jiledar on 3.3.1978. After hearing both the parties, the City Magistrate, Allahabad/Prescribed Authority, Allahabad recorded a finding that the petitioners against whom the proceeding under Public Premises was drawn up are the legal owners and are in authorized possession and consequently dismissed all the said cases by its order dated 13.3.1978. This order was never challenged by the respondents-authorities in any superior court, as such, it became final.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that one Chedi Lal filed a declaratory suit against the respondents which was decreed in his favour. The decree passed by court below was challenged by way of an appeal under Section 96 of the CPC before this Court. Thereupon the Division Bench of this Court by its judgment and order dated 16.11.2016 allowed the First Appeal No. 98 of 1998 (Railway Electrification & another Vs. Smt. Malti Devi and others) filed against the judgment and decree dated 22.10.1997 and 11.11.1997 passed by the Ist Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Allahabad whereby the Original Suit No. 25 of

¶14

1988 was set aside and the same was dismissed.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioners further referred to the impugned notices dated 5.7.2019 which have been issued and pasted on the doors of the petitioners on 6.7.2019 whereby a direction was given to the petitioners to vacate the land of the railway otherwise they will be evicted by demolishing their houses by using coercive methods. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Respondent No. 1 to 3 in collusion with the Respondent No. 4 under the garb of judgment passed in the First Appeal No. 98 of 1998 are threatening the petitioners to dispossess them from the property in question forcefully and further demolish their houses. He further submitted that the petitioners have constructed their houses on the land in question on the basis of a sale deed and are existing on the spot for the last more than 51 years. He further submitted that the judgment and order passed in First Appeal No. 98 of 1998, in fact, is not applicable/binding against the petitioners as they were neither a party in Suit No. 25 of 1988 or First Appeal No. 98 of 1988 nor any opportunity of hearing was given to them in the suit or the appeal. Therefore, the finding recorded in the appeal cannot be said to be binding upon the petitioners, as such, the petitioners cannot be evicted from the premises in dispute without due course of law. He further submitted that unless the matter is not adjudicated by a competent authority holding the petitioners to be trespassers, they cannot be evicted from the premisses in dispute.

¶16

Per contra, Sri Navneet Chandra Tripathi, learned counsel for the Respondents No. 1, 3 and

¶17

4 and Sri Rajnish Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 2 have very fairly submitted that the petitioners shall not be evicted from the premises/land in dispute except in accordance with law.

¶18

In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel of the petitioners and also the statement made by Sri Navneet Chandra Tripathi, learned counsel for the Respondents No. 1, 3 and 4 and Sri Rajnish Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 2, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, we direct that the petitioners shall not be evicted from the disputed premises/land except in due course of law.

¶19

With this observation, this writ petition stands finally disposed of.

¶20

Order Date :- 19.7.2019 vinay

Girija Shankar and 11 Others v. Union of India and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Girija Shankar and 11 Others v. Union of India and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajesh Kumar Verma Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Mohd. Ali Shaheed Vs Union of India and 5 Others

Padmdev Narain Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Nitin Kumar and Another Vs Union of India and 3 Others

Natthu Lal Yadav Vs State of U P and 3 Others

Smt. Satti Devi Vs State of U P and 4 Others