Disposed

Mohd Shahnavaz v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC4 Mar 2024WPMS/385/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought writ protection against anticipated arbitrary dispossession by Police Authorities concerning rented premises. The State responded that no such move exists as the eviction order pertained to a third-party tenant. With apprehension deemed baseless, the petitions were disposed of by accepting the State's explanation.

What did the court decide?

Petitions disposed of by taking the statement made by learned State Counsel on record.

Date

Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
or directions and
Registrar’s order
with Signatures

COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS

WPMS No. 374 of 2024
With
WPMS No. 385 of 2024
WPMS No. 389 of 2024
Hon’ble Man oj Ku m ar Tiw ar i, J.

(1)
Ms. Gurbani Singh, learned counsel for
the petitioners.

(2)
Mr.
Suyash
Pant,
learned
Standing
Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand.

(3)
Mr. Shobhit Joshi, Advocate holding brief
of
Mr.
Ashish
Joshi,
learned
counsel
for
respondent no. 3.
(4)
Since common questions of fact and law
are involved in these petitions, therefore, these
petitions are clubbed together and are being
heard & decided together. However, for the
sake of brevity and convenience, facts of WPMS
No. 374 of 2024 alone are being considered.
(5)
By means of this writ petition, petitioner
has sought the following reliefs: -

(i) A writ, order or direction in the nature of
mandamus directing the Respondents to not
dispossess
the
petitioner
from
his
peaceful
possession of the rented premises in the absence
of any legal proceedings initiated or legal order
against the petitioner.

(ii) A writ, order or direction in the nature of
mandamus directing the Respondents to not
harass the petitioner under the garb of eviction
order secured in Original Suit No. 47 of 1991
against one Mr. Suresh Chandra Gupta who was
the tenant of Respondent No. 7 on a certain
portion of the premises situated at 61 Kanwali
Road, Dehradun.

(6)
According to petitioner, he was inducted
as tenant byrespondentno. 7(Sri Nirmal

Kumar Jain) in respect of a shop, situate at 62 Kanwali Road, Dehradun, and in the absence of any eviction order passed against the petitioner, Police Authorities are contemplating to dispossess him from the said shop.
(7) Mr. Suyash Pant, learned State Counsel was asked to get instructions. Today, he has produced in Court written instructions received from the Office of District Magistrate, Dehradun, which is taken on record.
(8) Based on instructions, learned State Counsel submits that the apprehension expressed by petitioner is baseless, as there is no move to dispossess the petitioner from the shop in question; in fact, the eviction order was passed in respect of Mr. Suresh Chandra Gupta in the proceedings initiated by respondent no. 7 under Section 16 of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, which was decided in his (landlord) favour and in execution of the order passed by District Magistrate in the said proceedings, the Police Authorities had taken necessary steps for dispossessing Mr. Suresh Chandra Gupta from the residential accommodation, which was let out to him. He thus submits that there is no move to dispossess the petitioner and the apprehension expressed by him is without any substance.
(9) Learned counsel for petitioners submits that the writ petitions may be disposed of by taking the statement made by learned State Counsel on record.
(10) Accordingly, writ petitions are disposed of by taking the statement made by learned State Counsel on record. ( Man oj Ku m ar Tiw ar i, J.) 04.03.2024 Aswal

Kumar Jain) in respect of a shop, situate at 62
Kanwali Road, Dehradun, and in the absence of
any
eviction
order
passed
against
the
petitioner, Police Authorities are contemplating
to dispossess him from the said shop.

(7)
Mr. Suyash Pant, learned State Counsel
was asked to get instructions. Today, he has
produced in Court written instructions received
from
the
Office
of
District
Magistrate,
Dehradun, which is taken on record.

(8)
Based
on
instructions,
learned
State
Counsel
submits
that
the
apprehension
expressed by petitioner is baseless, as there is
no move to dispossess the petitioner from the
shop in question; in fact, the eviction order was
passed in respect of Mr. Suresh Chandra Gupta
in the proceedings initiated by respondent no. 7
under Section 16 of U.P. Urban Buildings
(Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act,
1972, which was decided in his (landlord)
favour and in execution of the order passed by
District Magistrate in the said proceedings, the
Police Authorities had taken necessary steps for
dispossessing Mr. Suresh Chandra Gupta from
the residential accommodation, which was let
out to him. He thus submits that there is no
move to dispossess the petitioner and the
apprehension expressed by him is without any
substance.

(9)
Learned counsel for petitioners submits
that the writ petitions may be disposed of by
taking the statement made by learned State
Counsel on record.

(10) Accordingly, writ petitions are disposed of
by taking the statement made by learned State
Counsel on record.
( Man oj Ku m ar Tiw ar i, J.)
04.03.2024
Aswal

Mohd Shahnavaz v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd Shahnavaz v. State of Uttarakhand

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

M/S Chauhan Construction Damta Barkot Uttarkashi Vs State of Uttarakhand through Secretary Public Work Department N.H. Division

M/S Chauhan Construction Damta Barkot Uttarkashi Vs State of Uttarakhand through Secretary Public Work Department N.H. Division

Sukhpal Singh Vs Commissioner Garhwal Mandal Garwal Dehradun

Indiabulls Housing Finance Limited Vs District Magistrate Nainital

Subhash Goyal Vs State of Uttarakhand

Sanjay Kumar Vs State of Uttarakhand