NAGAR PALIKA PARISHAD Vs. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A notice dated 31st March, 2000 was issued to Respondent No. 2 indicating therein that as per the report dated 31st March, 2000 of the draughtsman, the Petitioner is in unauthorized occupation of a nazul land which belongs to the State Govt. and that the Nagar Palika is facing a loss of Rs. 342/ - p.m. and, consequently, directed the Respondent No. 2 to vacate the premises in question. Since the premises was not vacated, inspite of the receiving the notice, the Petitioner filed an application Under Section 4 of the U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972 to vacate the premises. In this notice, it was contended that the land is a nazul land in which Respondent No. 2 was in unauthorized occupation and had also raised some constructions and inspite of the notice dated 31st March, 2000, the Respondent had not vacated the premises and, consequently, the notice Under Section 4(1). Another notice Under Section 7(3) of the Act was also issued indicating that the Respondent No. 2 was liable to pay damages @ Rs. 342 p.m. for the period 01/04/1997 to 30/06/2000 for unauthorized occupation of the premises in question. The Respondent No. 2, upon receiving the notice, filed his objection and contended that his forefathers were given the land to reside while working as labourers during the British rule when a tunnel was being constructed for a railway track from Haridwar to Dehradun and, since then, it has been in their occupation and has gone down to his father and to himself. The Respondents contended that they were in authorized occupation and, if unauthorized, was liable to be regularized.

(2.) THE Prescribed authority, after considering the material, found that there was no allotment in favour of the Respondent and, consequently, concluded that the Respondent was living unauthorizedly on the plot in question and, consequently, directed eviction of the Respondent and also directed to pay compensation amounting to Rs. 13,338/ - for wrongful occupation of the premises in question. The Respondent No. 2, being aggrieved by the said order, preferred an appeal which was allowed by an order dated 29th July, 2003. The Appellate Court held that the notice issued Under Section 4 of the Act was vague, as it did not indicate the date or the year when the Petitioner occupied the premises unauthorisedly nor the notice indicated the year or the month when the constructions were raised. The appellate court found that the Petitioner has been living in the premises for more than 35 years and, therefore, such occupation could not be held to be unauthorized and, in any case, the Petitioner could not be evicted after being in occupation for more than 35 years. The Appellate Court, Consequently, allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Prescribed Authority. The Nagar Palika Parishad, Haridwar, being aggrieved by the said order, has filed the present writ petition.

(3.) ONE of the questions which arises for consideration is, whether the notice contemplated the grounds for eviction or not and whether such grounds are required to be mentioned with precision in the notice or not? For facility, the provision of Section 4 of the Act is extracted hereunder: