State Of Uttaranchal & Anr vs Sunil Kumar Vaish & Ors

2. The State of Uttaranchal (the State which has interest now) submits that the above direction was given overlooking several important and vital documents which have considerable bearing for a proper and just determination of the dispute. Further, it was also pointed out that the High Court had failed to notice that even the inter- departmental communication was found to be improper by the Government of Uttar Pradesh.

5. Plot No. 1008 measuring 7 Bighas, 14 Biswas situated at Rampur Colony, Roorkee, originally belonged to the grand-father of the respondents Late Ram Rattan Lal, was acquired for rehabilitation of refugee camp at Roorkee and the amount of compensation for the acquisition was paid to Ram Rattan Lal on 13.3.1952. On 14.9.1962 Ram Rattan Lal made a request to the Government to lease out the said land for agricultural purposes. Request was considered favourably by the Government and a grant/lease deed was executed on 14.9.1962 in favour of Ram Rattan Lal on certain terms and conditions, which are extracted hereinbelow:

7. The District Magistrate, Saharanpur accordingly vide his proceeding dated 24.12.1971 determined the lease as per Clause 4 of the lease deed dated 14.9.1962 stating that the land was required by the Government for a public purpose i.e. for construction of a building for the use of a Government Litho Press at Roorkee. Ram Rattan Lal was, therefore, directed to vacate the premises within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of notice. Ram Rattan Lal did not vacate the premises within the stipulated time and was found to be in unauthorised occupation of the land since 27.1.1972. The State of Uttar Pradesh then initiated ejectment proceedings under the U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) act, 1972 [for short U.P. Act XXII of 1972] before the Sub Divisional Magistrate (Prescribed authority) by filing case No. 1227 of 1972 under Section 4 of the U.P. Act XXII of 1972. It was pointed out that the State was entitled to possession since 27.1.1972 and was suffering a loss of Rs.500/- per month from that date and that Ram Rattan Lal was liable to pay damages of Rs.3,000/- and also the damages till the date of delivery of possession.

9. Aggrieved by the above-mentioned order Ram Rattan Lal preferred Misc. Appeal No.335 of 1973 before the 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Saharanpur and the Court held that the land was a public premises and Ram Rattan Lal was in unauthorised occupation after the determination of grant and action for his eviction under the U.P. Act No. XXII of 1972 was fully justified. However, the rate of damages fixed by the prescribed authority was reduced to Rs.60/- per month. Aggrieved by the said order Ram Rattan Lal filed Civil Misc. Writ No.12304 of 1975 before the High Court of judicature at Allahabad. Before the High Court, the contention was raised that Ram Rattan Lal should be treated as Bhumidar under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Lad Reforms Act. High Court rejected all those contentions and held that Ram Rattan Lal had not acquired the rights of a Bhumidar under any of the provisions of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and was not a tenure holder under any of the clauses mentioned in Section 129 of the aforesaid Act and held that the step taken for eviction in respect of Ram Rattan Lal was fully justified under U.P. Act XXII of 1972. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed with costs.

11. District Magistrate, Haridwar, without referring to any of those facts, sent a communication dated 17.9.1993 to the Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh stating as under:

Appeal No. 335 of 1973 affirming the finding that Ram Rattan Lal was an unauthorised occupant after determination of the grant and the action for his eviction was fully justified.

3. Judgment of the High Court of Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ No. 12304 of 1975 affirming the above mentioned orders.

20. We, therefore, set aside the judgment of the High Court in Writ Petition No. 401 of 2002 expressing our strong disapproval. Appeal is, therefore, allowed with costs, which is quantified as Rs.10,000/- .