MOHD AKRAM Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has expressly waived challenge thrown by his client to the validity of Section 48(2)(b)(i) and Section 48 (2)(b) (xvii) of the Uttar Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1916. LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has confined his challenge to the impugned order dated 2nd March, 2009 passed by the respondent No.2.

(2.) FACTS of the case, to which there appears to be no dispute, are that the petitioner filed nomination on 29th March, 2008 for being elected as President of the Ram Nagar, Municipality. He was elected as President of the said Municipality on 21st April, 2008. Respondent No.7 filed a complaint on 7th May, 2008 stating that the petitioner was not qualified for being chosen as President of the said Municipality. The reason indicated was that he is in occupation of a Nazul land unauthorizedly. It was indicated that before petitioner had filed his nomination, a demand notice was issued to him. The above com- plaint was inquired, in course whereof, a no- tice was given to the petitioner to explain his stand pertaining to the complaint. Petitioner, in his reply, stated that his younger brother moved the Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Rain Nagar against him and against the Municipality in respect of the said demand notice and obtained a decree on 3rd September, 2008, whereby and uhder Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Ram Nagar restrained the petitioner and the Municipality by way of a permanent injunction not to interfere with the land in question. Accepting the fact of passing of such decree and holding out that the said decree is binding on the parties, in the impugned order dated 2nd March, 2009, respondent No.2 held that since under the Muslim (Sunni) Law, the brother of the petitioner is an heir of the petitioner, and since the brother of the petitioner is in unauthorised occupation of a Nazul land, petitioner is disqualified for being chosen as President of the said Municipality and, accordingly, nullified his election as President of the said Municipality.

(3.) WE hold that the order impugned do not disclose any material, on the basis whereby a prudent person can come to the conclusion, that the petitioner or his brother was in unauthorized occupation of any land belonging to the Municipality or the Government. In such view of the matter, we allow the writ petition and quash the order impugned.