ARIMA SRIWASTAVA Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE husband of the petitioner was an employee in the then Uttar Pradesh Irrigation Department and was allotted a house in the Irrigation Colony at Haridwar. On 09.11.2000, the State of Uttarakhand was carved out from the erstwhile State of Uttar Pradesh, by an Act of Parliament known as "Uttar Pradesh Re -organization Act.

(2.) AS per Section 43 of the Uttar Pradesh Reorganisation Act "all land and all stores, articles and other goods belonging to the existing State of Uttar Pradesh shall if within the transferred territory, pass to the State of Uttaranchal."

(3.) ADMITTEDLY the land and the building are in the territory of Uttarakhand, therefore, it belongs to the State of Uttarakhand. Meanwhile, the husband of the petitioner died and according to the petitioner she has been appointed as Junior Clerk in the Irrigation Department on compassionate ground. However, the house in dispute was allotted to her by an order dated 21.08.2006 by Executive Engineer -I, Uttari Khand, Gang Nahar Roorkee, Haridwar, who is an employee of Uttar Pradesh Government. Certain irrigation projects, though in the territory of Uttarakhand, are being presently controlled by the Irrigation Authority, of Uttar Pradesh. However, the fact remains that the land and the buildings, which are in the territory of Uttarakhand are the property of Uttarakhand, in view of Section 43 of the U.P. Re -organization Act, as already referred above. Therefore, the only authority to whom the petitioner is liable to give her rent are the authorities in Uttarakhand, and therefore, rightly the rent is being demanded by the Authorities in the Uttarakhand, such as Executive Engineer, Power House Nirman Khand, Pashulok Rishikesh, District Dehradun. There is nothing wrong in it. However, since the petitioner was allotted a house by authorities, may be under a misconception, and since she is a bonafidely residing in the allotted house, she cannot be called an unauthorized occupant, she is aggrieved by the citation as has been issued to her by respondent No. 3 demanding a penal rent of the market value of the house from the petitioner.