RAM PRASAD Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CAN a public authority dispossess a person in occupation of government land without having recourse to law is the short question for consideration in this petition for a writ of Mandamus or direction to opposite parties not to interfere with petitioner's possession.

(2.) LAW appears to be fairly unanimous that one of the shades of rule of law is that the law applies with even hand both to State and its subjects. Therefore, it has to be examined if the claim of opposite parties that since petitioner is in unauthorised occupation of the land in dispute he has no right to resist construction of an approach road through his land is well founded in law. Although when the petition was filed facts were not clear and, therefore, divergence was more than what it is now after filing of supplementary affidavits and reply thereto. What appears established, however, is that plot no. 171/2/2, part of government land, was let out to petitioner in December, 1949 by Collector, Allahabad as Manager, Court of Wards. Whether this was in accordance with law and whether it is this very plot which has now become 171/5 are aspects on which parties have joined issues. Prior to adverting to the legality of the lease and its effect it appears appropriate to thrash out the factual controversy if plot no. 171/5 through which opposite parties propose to take the approach road to the second bridge which is being constructed over river Ganges near the old curzon bridge is the same plot which was numbered as 171/2/2 in 1959 and was leased out to petitioner by Collector, Allahabad as if the identity of plot is not established then the controversy would shift from conferment or creation of rights to dispossession only in accordance with law.

(3.) AS regards paragraphs 247 and 248 of Courts of Wards Manual the objection of learned counsel appears to be without any substance. Copy of Qabuliat required to be executed under 248 if Settlement of vacant land under 247 was sanctioned has been filed by petitioner. It is in form no. 56. It bears the signatures of petitioner and Manager Court of Wards. Therefore, it satisfied the requirements as provided. The inference if any could be drawn from it in favour of petitioner and not against him. The learned counsel also produced a register maintained by Government Estate Office containing entries of Pattas between 1929 and 1953 and urged that since petitioner's name was not entered! in it the inference was irresistable that no lease was executed in his favour. Extract of it relating to village in dispute has been filed as well. The very heading of the register indicates that it is a register of land of government Estate given for construction of building or for other special work. It is not a register of agricultural lease. Every entry in it indicates that land was given for construction of house. The learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel could not point out even one entry relating to agricultural lease. Even if the register would have been a register of agricultural leases it could not have been of any help to opposite party in view of lease, the Qabuliat entry in revenue records, payment of rent, and above all possession. Nor non registration or non stamping of the lease are not very relevant. Whether registration of lease the rent of which was below Rs. 100/- was valid need not be gone into as even in absence of registration or stamping the document could be relied to establish possession.