Dismissed

V.P.Singh Vijay Prasad Singh v. Steel Aythority of India, Limi

Jharkhand HC17 Jul 2019WPC/482/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This high court disposed of a writ petition challenged against an eviction order passed by an Estate Officer and affirmed by the District Judge. The petitioner, an Estate Officer, was using a quarter meant for the Workers' Union as his residence despite already being allotted another quarter. The court found the orders were correct and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

The writ application was not entertained and was consequently dismissed, upholding the orders to vacate the premises within 15 days.

V.P.Singh Vijay Prasad Singh Vs Steel Aythority of… — Property and Title | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P.(C) No. 482 of 2012 V.P. Singh @ Vijay Prasad Singh .... Petitioner Versus

¶3

The Steel Authority of India Limited, Ispat Bhawan, Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro Steel City & others … Respondents ---

¶4

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

¶5

--For the Petitioner : None For the Respondents : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate & Mr. Rahul Bharti, Advocate ---

¶6

Order No. 05 Dated 17^th July, 2019

¶7

None appears for petitioner. However, Mr. Rahul Bharti, learned counsel for the respondents is present.

¶8

The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 08.09.2011 passed in Case No. A/E 01/2003 by the Estate Officer by which the petitioner has been directed to vacate the quarter within 15 days. The petitioner is further aggrieved by the order dated 22.12.2011 passed in Misc. Appeal No. 24 of 2011 by learned Principal District Judge, Bokaro by which the order passed by the Estate Officer has been affirmed.

¶9

It is the case of the petitioner that Qr. No. D-383, Sector-III/E, Bokaro Steel City was allotted to Bokaro Steel Workers’ Union on 12.08.87. It has also been stated that after the quarter was allotted to the Union, the same was handed over to the petitioner to use the said quarter as residential office of the said Union being the Assistant Secretary of said Union since the year 1990. The petitioner further claims that the quarter in question was being used by the Union for the purpose for which it was allotted and in absence of there being any violation of the terms and conditions of the allotment, the eviction order could not have been passed.

¶10

Learned counsel for the respondents has stated that the petitioner being the Assistant Secretary of said Union was using the said quarter for his residential purposes although the petitioner, being the employee of Bokaro Steel Plant was allotted another quarter and therefore the allotment was rightly cancelled and the petitioner was directed to vacate the said premises.

¶11

The Estate Officer had initiated a proceeding in terms of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 and vide order dated 08.09.2011 the petitioner was directed to vacate the quarter within 15 days.

¶12

¶13

Being arrived by the order dated 08.09.201, the petitioner had preferred an appeal before the learned Principal District Judge, Bokaro being Misc. Appeal No. 24 of 2011 which was also dismissed on 22.12.2011.

¶14

It appears from the finding recorded by both the courts that the petitioner was already allotted a quarter by the Company being Qr. No. 6/D/1056 which was admitted by the petitioner as well as by his witness. The purpose of allotment of quarter to Bokaro Steel Workers’ Union was in order to use the said quarter as residential office of the said Union, but it appears that the terms and conditions of allotment was violated by the petitioner inasmuch as office of the Union was occupied by the petitioner and was being used by him as his residential purpose in spite of the fact that the petitioner was already in occupation of another quarter being an employee of the Company. The Estate Officer had initiated a proceeding in terms of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 and vide order dated 08.09.2011 the petitioner was rightly directed to vacate the quarter within 15 days which was subsequently affirmed in appeal.

¶15

There being no reason to differ with the impugned orders, I am not inclined to entertain this writ application, which is accordingly dismissed

¶16

(RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.)

¶17

V.P.Singh Vijay Prasad Singh v. Steel Aythority of India, Limi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.P.Singh Vijay Prasad Singh v. Steel Aythority of India, Limi

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

Barmeshwar Yadav And Ors. Vs Dvc, through Mr.L.B.Sharma And O

B.Manilal And Co. Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Munshi Ram Kashyap Vs the State of Jharkhand through Its Chief Secretary and Ors.

Basant Raut And Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Anil Kumar Gupta And Anr. Vs State Bank of India And Anr.

Jharkhand Ispat Private Limited through Its Director Namely Sri Rajeev Kumar Agarwal Vs the Union of India through the Secretary Ministry of Coal and Ors.