Dismissed

Vijay Singh and Ors. v. the Mc Bharatpur and Ors.

Rajasthan HC2 Apr 2019CW/4001/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging eviction orders passed under the Rajasthan Public Premises Act. The court held that the petitioner's predecessors held the land only as tenants and lacked title to sell it. Consequently, the land remained 'Nuzul' property, and the eviction orders were correctly passed.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed as wholly misconceived, upholding the eviction order.

Vijay Singh and Ors. Vs the Mc Bharatpur… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4001/2001

¶3

Vijay Singh son of Shri Ram Sharan by caste Gurjar resident of Gudadhi Mohalla, Bharatpur.

¶4

Lallu Ram @ Jai Singh son of Ram Sharan bycaste Gurjar resident of Gudadhi Mohalla, Bharatpur.

¶5

…..Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

The Municipal Council, Bharatpur through its Commissioner.

¶8

The Estate Officer, Municipal Council, Bharatpur.

¶9

Shri Shyam Sunder son of Girraj Prasad bycaste Vaishya, resident of Gudadhi Mohalla, Bharatpur.

¶10

The Addl. District Judge, NO. 2, Bharatpur.

¶11

…..Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nitin Jain, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.C. Gupta, Adv. Mr. B.K. Sharma, Adv.

¶13

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA Judgment / Order

¶14

02/04/2019

¶15

By way of this writ petition, petitioners assail the notice dated 11/05/1998 issued by the Estate Officer under Section 4(1) of the Rajasthan Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act of 1964’) whereby the Estate Officer has declared the petitioners to be unauthorized occupants; and the order dated 28/08/1998 passed by the Estate Officer under Section 5 of the Act of 1964 for evicting the petitioners from the property admeasuring 36.90 sq.yds holding it to be the State property as well as the order dated 10/07/2001 passed by the appellate authority whereby the

¶16

(2 of 5)

¶17

[CW-4001/2001]

¶18

appellate authority, while dismissing the appeal of the petitioners, has upheld the order dated 28/08/1998 passed by the Estate Officer.

¶19

Case of the petitioners is that it was essentially for the Estate Officer to mention in the notice itself about the grounds of his satisfaction to the fact that the person to whom such notice is issued, is an unauthorized occupant. 3. The facts of the case as mentioned by the petitioners are that there was a piece of land situated at Mohalla Gudri, Bharatpur within the municipal limits of Municipal Board Bharatpur which was in ownership and possession of one Suraj son of Bharti. He applied for grant of permission for raising construction and repairing of his house which was granted by the Municipal Board vide permission letter dated 03/04/1932. Suraj sold his house by registered sale deed on 31/08/1967 to one Ram Sharan. After death of Ram Sharan his widow Smt. Mohan Kaur divided the property in between her two sons namely; Vijay Singh and Jai Singh by registered partition deed dated 22/11/1984 and the petitioner Vijay Singh was serviced a notice on 27/12/1997 by the Commissioner, Municipal Council, Bharatpur to evict the house in dispute within seven days. The petitioner informed about his ownership and possession by his reply whereafter the Estate Officer gave him a notice under Section 4(1) of the Act of 1964 to which the petitioner submitted his reply.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Estate Officer has wrongly held the land to be ‘Nuzul’ land and so far as the petitioners’ father Ram Sharan is concerned, he had bonafiedly purchased the said property from Suraj in 1967 and Suraj was given due permission for construction and repairing of the house

¶21

(3 of 5)

¶22

[CW-4001/2001]

¶23

and therefore, the said land can not be said to be ‘Nuzul’ land. The property was a private property and house was constructed way back in the year 1934 and therefore, the issuance of the notice was illegal and unjustified. It was submitted that the notice does not specify the exact boundaries of the land which the petitioner could be said to have unauthorizedly occupied. The notice was a vague notice and no schedule as mentioned in the notice has not been mentioned in the bottom of the notice and the entire proceedings must therefore be held to be bad. Learned counsel relies on the judgment in Gokul Vs. Raj. Muslim Wakf Board & ors.: 1998(2) RLR 200 and Raja Fateh Singh Vs. State of Raj. & ors.: 1986 RLR 966 . He also relies on the judgment rendered in Kaikhosrou (Chick) Kavasji Framji and anr. Vs. Union of India and anr.: (2019) 0 Supreme (SC) 296.

¶24

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents points out that the petitioners had no right to occupy the property which was a Government property. It has been submitted that the petitioners Vijay Singh and Lallu Ram @ Jai Singh, who are brothers, were occupying the property which was originally in the name of ‘Nuzul’ property. The petitioners have encroached upon the public land which is vested in Municipal Council, Bharatpur. It has been submitted that as per the record the land no.29 was included in ‘Nuzul’ on 23/11/1940 and was given on rent to one Bharti son of Chhitar on 14/12/1950 for a sum of Rs.1 aana per month. Bharti’s son Suraj, therefore, had no right to sale the State property to the petitioners’ father and no title can be said to have been devolved on the petitioner for the property. Registration of the sale deed by Suraj in favour of Ram Sharan father of the petitioners was replied to be ignored and did

¶25

(4 of 5)

¶26

[CW-4001/2001]

¶27

not have any right in favour of the petitioners. It is also specifically replied by the Municipal Council that Suraj at no point of time was granted permission for construction and the so-called permission as stated by the petitioners was only for maintenance and not for Pakka construction and does not create right of ownership. The public land cannot be sold by any third person even by registered sale deed and the buyer has to be vigilant.

¶28

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that it is an admitted position that possession of the land was given out on tenancy of Rs.1 aana per month for an area of 36.90 sq.yds. to Suraj son of Bharti, to whom the original tenancy was created, who sold out the land to Ram Sharan although the tenancy was in the name of Bharti. Thus, Suraj had no right to sell out the land and the Estate Officer has rightly reached to the conclusion that since 1950, the Municipal Council was not receiving the rent and it is a ‘Nuzul’ land and was under the title of Municipal Council, Bharatpur and the notice for eviction under the Act of 1964 was rightly issued. The petitioners have not been able to make out any case. There is concurrent finding both by the Estate Officer as well as the appellate court of Additional District Judge No.2, Bharatpur in favour of the Municipal Council, Bharatpur which is not to be interfered with by this Court. The judgments which have been cited are cases where the concerned occupant was claiming himself ownership on the land. However, in the present case, admittedly the petitioners also have filed petition on the ground of having got right on the property through Bharti, Suraj and Ram Sharan. As Bharti had no right or title on the property, it cannot be said that the matter should be left to the Civil Court alone to decide the declaration of ownership of the

¶29

(5 of 5) [CW-4001/2001]

¶30

immovable property. The petitioners have not a dispute regarding ownership of the Municipal Council, Bharatpur. In the circumstances, the judgment in Kaikhosrou (Chick) Kavasji Framji and anr. Vs. Union of India and anr. (supra) would not have any application to the facts of the case.

¶31

In the circumstances, the writ petition being wholly misconceived is accordingly dismissed.

¶32

(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J

¶33

Raghu/8

Vijay Singh and Ors. v. the Mc Bharatpur and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Singh and Ors. v. the Mc Bharatpur and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohammad Hashir Son of Shri Abdul Mazid Vs State of Rajasthan through Its Principal Secretary

Rajendra Prasad Son of Shri Babu Lal Vs Shri Ravi Dutt Sharma Son of Shri Krishna Dutt Sharma

Satish Chand Sharmaandors Vs State of Raj Thr Chief Secretary and Ors.

Kajod Singh Andanr Vs Meeta Agarwal Andors

Dr. Abhishek Vyas Son of Dr. B.L. Vyas Vs State of Rajasthan

Smt. Saroj Devi Sharma W/O Shankar Lal Sharma Vs Jamaluddin S/O Shri Aameen Chauhan