IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 37 of 2008 Akhilanand Mishra S/o Sri Ramchandra Mishra R/o C/o Dr. Shiv Kumar Sharma Village Rohalki Dayal Pur P.O. Bhagwan Pur District Haridwar Uttarakhand ……….…..Petitioner. Versus (1) Union of India Through its Secretary Ministry of Works, Housing & Supplies Krishi Bhawan New Delhi-110001. (2) Nagar Palika Parishad Haridwar (Hereinafter NPP Haridwar) Through its Executive Officer Officer of the Nagar Palika Parishad Mayapur, Haridwar Distt Haridwar (Uttarakhand) (3) The Secretary Urban Development Government of Uttarakhand Dehradun. (4) Sri Vinay Gupta, Engineer Nagar Palika Parishad, Haridwar Occupant of Q. No. 7 Devapura Colony, NPP, Haridwar Nagar Palika Parishad Haridwar, Uttarakhand. ……………..Respondents. 2 Sri Ashok Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Sri Pankaj Miglani, Advocate, for the Respondent No. 2. Sri K.P. Upadhyaya, Additional Chief Standing Counsel, for the respondent No. 3. Hon'ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents No. 2 and 3 to sell the house in question to the petitioner. A further mandamus has been sought to restore the possession of the petitioner in the Quarter No. 7, Municipal Colony, Devapura, Haridwar. (2) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the affidavit and counter affidavit filed on their behalf. (3) Brief facts of the case are that under the Low Income Group Housing scheme some 30 residential quarters were constructed in Devapura Nagar Palika Parishad Colony Vichitra Vatika, Haridwar, by the Government of India and the petitioner was allotted in the year 1988 Quarter No. 7 in the said Colony on a fixed rent. Petitioner’s case is that vide Nagar Palika’s Resolution No. 1611, it was decided by the Board to sell the quarters allotted to the occupants. 3 However, it appears that said resolution was not acted upon. The petitioner has alleged that instead of transferring the quarter to the petitioner proceedings were initiated against him under U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972, which was contested by him. It is admitted that the said proceedings have finally come to an end and petitioner has been evicted physically from the aforesaid quarter on 6th January 2004. Alleging that the proceedings were illegal and the petitioner has been discriminated as against one J.S. Jaida, who was occupying Quarter No. 8 of Vatika Colony, Haridwar, the petitioner has sought the reliefs prayed in the writ petition. (4) In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent- Nagar Palika Parishad it has been stated that the petitioner was an employee of Nagar Palika Parishad, Haridwar, and he was allotted the quarter because he was in the employment of the Parishad. It is further stated that the eviction proceedings were earlier challenged by the petitioner by filing Writ Petition No. 319 of 2003 (M/S), in which the stay order passed in favour of the petitioner, was vacated on 30th May 2003, against which the petitioner filed 4 special leave petition before the apex court and the same was also dismissed on 02.12.2003. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that vide Government Order dated 19th August 2005, the Government has categorically refused to transfer any property vested in local bodies, as such the petitioner is not entitled to any benefit claimed by him. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that because the petitioner was evicted after adopting due process of law, the petitioner is not entitled to the reliefs claimed by him. (5) Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the papers on record, this Court finds that the petitioner was allottee of the Quarter No. 7, Municipal Colony, Devapura, Haridwar, and it appears that after his transfer, he was directed to vacate the premises and when he failed to do so, eviction proceedings were initiated against him under U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972. (6) Since the eviction of the petitioner was made by adopting the procedure prescribed under the aforesaid Act, it cannot be said that the petitioner is illegally evicted from the premises. Therefore, 5 this Court is not inclined to grant the reliefs claimed by the petitioner. (7) Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that similarly situated employee J.S. Jaida was permitted to occupy the Quarter No. 8, while the petitioner was discriminated arbitrarily as against him. In reply to this learned counsel for the respondent-Nagar Palika Parishad submitted that in the year 2003 J.S. Jaida was posted in Haridwar, as such the petitioner cannot be said to be similarly situated to the petitioner. (8) For the reasons as discussed above, this writ petition has no force. The same is liable to be dismissed. Petition is dismissed. (Prafulla. C. Pant, J.) 21.10.2008 NS 6