RAJ NARAIN AGARWAL Vs. ADMINISTRATOR IMPROVEMENT TRUST AGRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution praying that a writ of certiorari be issued quashing the notices dated 15-9-1955 and 23-12-1955 issued by the opposite party, the Administrator, Improvement Trust, Agra. It is further prayed that a writ of mandamus be issued to the opposite party requiring him to forebear from giving effect to the notices and the order dated 15-9-1955 and 23-12-1955.

(2.) The facts briefly which are alleged in the affidavit are that the petitioner is the proprietor of a flour mill known as Agra Roller Flour Mill which is situate in Phatak Suraj Brian, Agra, on land, and premises bearing the present municipal number 1162. The land was acquired by the petitioner under various sale deeds on different dates and it is not necessary to go into details as regards the question of title of the petitioner to the land. On 16-9-1955 the petitioner, it is alleged, received the notice dated 15-9-1955 from Sri M. A. Quraishi, Administrator, Agra Improvement Trust, Agra, requiring him to remove encroachments alleged to have been made over a total area of 629.7 sq. yards of Nazul Plot No. 2325 at Phatak. Suraj Bhan, Agra within ten days of the receipt of the notice failing which the encroachments were to be removed through the Administrator's own agency at petitioner's cost. This notice purports to have been issued under bye-law No. 3 (1) of the Bye-laws of the Agra Municipal Board., The petitioner then on receipt of the notice, it is alleged, made several attempts to personally see the Administrator. Several attempts failed till untimately he met the Administrator and he was asked to give his reply to the notice. Thereafter the petitioner filed his objections to it in writing and he claimed that he had, made no encroachments on the Nazul land but whatever constructions he had made he had made on his own land. At a later stage he was asked to produce evidence to substantiate this allegation. His allegation is that he tried to place all the materials before the Administrator but he was not given any opportunity till finally on 23-12-1955 the notice was issued by the Administrator which reads as follows:

(3.) The counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the opposite party in which it is asserted that the petitioner is not the owner of the land on which he had made certain constructions, that land is a part of the Nazul land and the petitioner has encroached upon it. It is further alleged in the counter-affidavit that the petitioner was given full opportunity which he did not avail of with the result that the Administrator was forced to take action under the Bye-laws of the Municipal Board and the provisions of the Act. In view of the points pressed before me and in view of the decision on the other points it is not necessary to enter into this controversial question of fact.