Dismissed

Satya Narayan v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC1 Nov 2022WRIC/27806/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court dismissed the petitioner's writ petition challenging a show-cause notice to remove encroachments. The court held the petitioner had no legal right to freehold rights as no such policy existed, dismissing the petition except for the leave to apply for a refund of deposited money.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; petitioner left open to apply for refund of deposited money.

Satya Narayan Vs State of U.P. and 4… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 21 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 27806 of 2022 Petitioner :- Satya Narayan Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Raj Karan Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- CSC,Sant Ram Sharma

¶2

Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J. Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.

¶3

Heard counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondent. Sri Sant Ram Sharma has entered appearance on behalf of respondent nos. 4 and 5.

¶4

By means of the instant petition, the petitioner has challenged the show cause notice dated 3.9.2022 issued by Executive Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad, Banda, directing the petitioner to remove encroachments made by him over Government land within three days, failing which the same would be removed in accordance with law and the amount incurred in this behalf will be recovered as arrears of land revenue.

¶5

Counsel for the parties state that the instant matter is covered by the order delivered today in Writ - C No. 27559 of 2022 (Shambhudayal Gupta vs. State of U.P.), which is as follows: -

¶6

"Heard counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondents. Sri Sant Ram Sharma has entered appearance on behalf of respondent nos. 4 and 5.

¶7

The instant petition has been filed challenging the show cause notice dated 3.9.2022 issued by Executive Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad, Banda, directing the petitioner to remove encroachments made by him over Government land within three days, failing which the same would be removed in accordance with law and the amount incurred in this behalf will be recovered as arrears of land revenue.

¶8

The petitioner does not dispute that the constructions raised by him were over Government land and that he does not have any title over it. His case is that he had deposited Rs. 4,000/- on basis of self assessment in the Government Treasury for grant of freehold rights in respect of the land covered by illegal constructions.

¶9

Having regard to the above submission, we passed the following order on 13.9.2022: -

¶10

"As per Government Order dated 2.7.2020, the Government Grants Act had been repealed. The freehold policy has been kept in abeyance. Consequently, as on date, there is no freehold policy in existence under which freehold right can be granted.

¶11

The petitioner admits that he is not having any lease in his favour and is an encroacher of government land. He claims to have deposited certain amount with the respondents for conferring freehold right in his favour.

¶12

We require the respondents to clarify their stand in relation to freehold policy and in case there is no subsisting policy, how the amount deposited by the petitioner who is an encroacher of government property is still being retained by the respondents.

¶13

Sri Dilip Kesarwani, learned Additional Chief Standing counsel shall communicate the order to respondent No.2 so that he files his affidavit clarifying the above aspect.

¶14

List as fresh on 29.09.2022"

¶15

In compliance of the above order, respondent no. 2 has filed his personal affidavit and has stated that the petitioner had deposited Rs. 4,000/- on self evaluation for considering his application for grant of freehold rights. It is also stated in the said affidavit that as of date, there is no scheme of the Government to grant freehold rights in respect of such occupants. In case the petitioner applies for refund of the amount, it will be refunded to him as per Rules.

¶16

Counsel for the petitioner is not in position to dispute that as of date, there is no policy under which an illegal occupant of Government land can be conferred with freehold rights. We find no equity, nor any legal right in favour of the petitioner so as to interfere with the impugned notice.

¶17

The petition lacks merit and is dismissed.

¶18

However, it is left open to the petitioner to apply for refund of the money deposited by him in the Government Treasury and in which event the same will be refunded to him in accordance with the Rules."

¶19

Accordingly, the instant petition also stands disposed of in the same terms.

¶20

(Jayant Banerji, J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.)

¶21

Order Date :- 1.11.2022/Jaideep/Digitally signed by JAIDEEP BANERJEE Date: 2022.11.01 16:11:33 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Satya Narayan v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satya Narayan v. State of U.P. and 4 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

Jpc Infra Private Limited Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Prashant Kumar (P.K.) Ghosh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Matsya Jivi Sahkari Samiti Limited Ramgarh and Another Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Amarjit Roy and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Mohd Shanu Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Shambhudayal Gupta Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others