SHAUKAT Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

(2.) The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner was validly allotted a piece of land on which he had been carrying his shop for the last several years on monthly rent payable to the Collectorate, subject to annual renewal of the allotment which was renewed up to 31.3.2000. It is further stated that being threatened of his dispossession from the said Nazul land by the respondents, the petitioner submitted representation before the Commissioner who directed the District Magistrate to do the needful in accordance with law.

(3.) Per contra, learned Standing Counsel has submitted that as per lease deed the District Magistrate allotted the piece of land to the petitioner for a period of one year i.e., 1.4.1981 to 31.3.1982; that the said land is the property of State/Collectorate and piece of land measuring 30' x 8' was allotted to the petitioner on lease of Rs. 50/- per month for one year as per terms and conditions laid down in the allotment order dated 4.4.1981; that period of one year was thereafter never extended or renewed by the competent authority; that the lease has expired on 31.3.1982, hence status of petitioner over the property in dispute is of trespasser. It is also stated that petitioner has violated Condition No. 3 of lease deed enumerated in para No. 20 of the writ petition as he raised pucca construction on the said land; that as per Condition No. 7 of the lease deed, the allottee shall not be deemed to have acquired any right or interest on the said land after expiry of the lease period.