The High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking to quash administrative orders declaring the petitioner an unauthorized occupant and directing eviction. The Court held that the authorities had considered all aspects and the orders did not warrant judicial interference.
Petition dismissed; interim stay on eviction vacated.
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. - 14
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 41599 of 2014
Petitioner :- Gaya Prasad Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Saroj Kashyap,Nanhe Lal Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,C.K. Parekh,Rahul Sahai
Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.
The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners with the prayer to quash the orders dated 9.4.2007 and 31.3.2014 passed by S.D.O./Deputy Collector, Sadar, Agra/respondent No.4 and respondent No.2/Board of Revenue U.P. at Allahabad respectively (copy of which are annexed as Annexure Nos.7 and 9 respectively.) A further prayer is also made to issue a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents not to destroy the petitioner's house No.43/302, Sihandara, Agra.
When the writ petition was taken up as fresh on 12.8.2014 following order was passed:-
"Heard Sri Nanhe Lal Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents and Sri C.K.Parekh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 6.
While assailing the impugned orders, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been treated to be unauthorized occupant over the land in dispute by the Sub-Divisional Officer and an order has been passed against him. Challenging the aforesaid order, the petitioner has filed revision before the Board of Revenue but the revisional court has dismissed the revision holding it to be not maintainable for the reason that the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer was on administrative side. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that by the administrative order, no person could be asked to be evicted unless the procedure prescribed under the relevant statute meant for that is taken. In his submissions, the proper course for the respondents was to initiate the proceeding under Section 122-B of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 in a case where the allegation is the encroachment upon the pond belonging to a local authority. Prima facie, there appears to be some substance in the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner.
Matter requires scrutiny.
Issue notice.
Notices on behalf of respondents no. 1 to 5 have been accepted by the office of learned Chief Standing Counsel whereas Sri C.K.Parekh has put in appearance on behalf of respondents no. 6, therefore notice need not be served again to respondents no. 1 to 6.
Learned counsel for the respondents are granted four weeks' time to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within two weeks thereafter.
List thereafter.
As an interim measure without prejudice to the right and contention of the parties, subject to deposit of Rs. 15,000/- within a period of two months from today before the respondent no. 5, the eviction of the petitioner from the house in dispute shall remain stayed. The petitioner is restrained from creating any third party right and raising any new construction on the same.
Today when the matter is taken up, no body is present on behalf of the petitioners even in the revised call and nothing has been brought on record that whether the directions given by this Court while granting interim protection vide its order dated 12.8.2014 had been followed or not."
On the other hand, Mr. Pankaj Kumar, along with Sri Rajesh Kumar Pandey, learned Standing counsel for the respondent No.1 to 5 and Sri Satish Kumar Pandey, Advocate holding brief of Sri Rahul Sahai learned counsel for respondent No.6 supported the orders passed by the authorities and submitted that the orders passed by the authorities after due consideration of the all aspects of the matter and petition is liable to be dismissed.
I have perused the orders dated 9.4.2007 and 31.3.2014 passed by S.D.O./Deputy Collector, Sadar, Agra and Board of Revenue U.P. at Allahabad respectively as well as the facts and grounds as contained in the writ petition challenging the aforesaid orders which are impugned.
From the perusal of the aforesaid impugned orders, facts and grounds mentioned in the writ petition, it appears that both the orders were passed by the authorities after considering all aspects of the matter and the orders do not call for any interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The writ petition is devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed.
Interim order dated 12.8.2014 stands vacated.
Order Date :- 12.4.2019 saqlain
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned orders dated 9.4.2007 and 31.3.2014 passed by the S.D.O. and Board of Revenue calling for eviction call for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Whether the petitioner is liable to be evicted from the house claimed as his.
Gaya Prasad
State Of U.P.
Prakash Padia
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
