VIJAY SINGH Vs. STATE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Shri Sachindra Upadhyaya, the learned Counsel assisted by Mrs. Prabha Naithani, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri R.C. Arya, the leaned Brief Holder for the respondents. This matter is confined to the question as to whether the petitioner is in unauthorized occupation of the land belonging to the State Government or not. The question of grant of lease to the petitioner is not under consideration. Consequently, the amendment application seeking relief for grant of lease deed is misconceived quite apart from the fact that the impugned order sought to be brought on record is of the year 1984 and, consequently, a belated application. The amendment application as well as the impleadment application filed today in Court is rejected. The petitioner contends that he is in continuous possession of the land in question since 1962. The petitioner is alleged to have raised certain construction on unauthorized and, in this regard, a notice under section 10 of the U.P. (Regulation of Building Operations) Act, 1958 was issued for demolition of the unauthorized constructions. It is alleged that the petitioner submitted a reply staring therein that he had obtained permission for construction of a temporary shed. The Prescribed Authority, by an order dated 24th February, 1984, directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 100/ - as compounding fee for the regularization of the construction. It is alleged that based on the said order, the petitioner deposited the aforesaid amount of Rs. 100/. The petitioner contends that he has become the owner of the land by adverse possession and, after depositing a sum of Rs. 100/ -, the petitioner applied for the regularization of his construction. His application was rejected by the Prescribed Authority by an order dated 6th July, 1985. Subsequently, the petitioner received another notice under section 4/5 of the U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972. The petitioner submitted a reply that he has been in continuous possession since 1962 and, consequently, he becomes an owner by adverse possession and, therefore, the proceedings under the Act of 1972 could not be initiated. The Prescribed Authority, after considering the matter, found that the land belonged to the Government and that the petitioner had illegally encroached upon the Government land and, consequently, passed an order dated 9th April, 1986 for the ejectment of the petitioner from the land in question. The petitioner, being aggrieved, filed an appeal before the District Judge which was also rejected by an order dated 18th September, 1986. The petitioner, being aggrieved, has filed the present writ petition.

(2.) FROM a perusal of the impugned order, it is clear that the petitioner has encroached upon the Government land and has not been able to prove adverse possession from any documentary record. Consequently, the Court is of the opinion that the impugned orders directing the ejectment of the petitioner does not suffer from any error of law. The writ petition fails and is dismissed. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had applied for regularization for grant of lease on account of continuous possession which was rejected by the authority by an order dated 10.12.1996 on the ground that such application cannot be considered till the disposal of the writ petition filed against the orders under the U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972. Having perused the order dated 10.12.1996, this Court directs that in the event the petitioner applies for grant of lease, it would be open to the authority to consider the matter afresh in accordance with law.