IRSHAD AHMAD SIDDIQUI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Orders for eviction and damages as well as its affirmance in appeal, passed against the petitioners, are under challenge in these bunch of writ petitions, which have been heard together, and are being being decided by this common judgment.

(2.) Proceedings under sections 4 and 7 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971, (hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1971') were initiated on behalf of State of U.P. through Registrar of the High Court, Allahabad, against the petitioners on 5.2.1988, in leading writ petition no.55989 of 2014, with the allegation that plot nos.232/2 and 278/1 had been acquired in the year 1913 for establishment of civil court compound at Varanasi and continues to remain in possession of the District Judge, Varanasi, ever since then. Licence on the basis of auction was granted for establishment of shops. It was alleged that for the year 1982-83, such licence was granted in favour of the petitioner, on basis of his highest bid, but petitioner remained in unauthorized occupations of the premises beyond 31st March, 1983. It was stated that orders for eviction of petitioner be passed and yearly damages of Rs.5,000/- was liable to be recovered w.e.f. 1.4.1983. An application dated 4.5.1988 was also filed in the proceedings by the petitioner through his counsel Sri Vijay Bahadur Singh, seeking two months further time for filing of an objection in the matter.

(3.) Ultimately, an objection dated 19.12.1988 was filed, which was kept on record of the authorities on 6.1.1989. It would be relevant to note that in all these bunch of writ petitions, similar objections were filed with identical stand, taken therein. It was submitted that petitioner remained in possession, pursuant to allotment, and was informed that fresh licence in his favour would be granted, and that petitioner is not an unauthorized occupant. It was stated that since no reasons for eviction have been shown in the application, therefore, notice under section 4 was illegal, particularly, as exact description of the premises was not mentioned therein. It was stated that licence was pursuant to petitioner's bid and as this is the only source of livelihood for the petitioner, therefore, proceedings for eviction be dropped, and he is prepared to pay reasonable higher amount as licence fee/rent for subsequent years.