JAGDISH SINGH Vs. DISTT JUDGE NAINITAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) D. K. Seth, J. Case No. 22/250 of 1977-78 under the provisions of U. P. Public Premises (Eviction of Un authorised Occupants) Act, 1972 (herein after referred to as the Act) was decided against by the petitioner by an order dated 7-11-1979. Appeal No. 888 of 1979 preferred by the petitioner was dismissed by order dated 19- 8-1981. These two or ders are being challenged in the present writ petition.

(2.) MR. G. N. Verma, learned Counsel for the petitioner assails the impugned orders on four grounds. His first conten tion was that the premises being a land held by hereditary tenure-holder does not come within the definition of public premises. Secondly, he contended that the petitioner having been holding the land derived from hereditary tenure-holder, his occupation does not come within the definition of unauthorised occupation. Thirdly, he contended that the prescribed authority cannot assume jurisdiction in respect of the land which is excluded from operation of the Act by virtue of definition of premises in Section 2 (b) of the Act providing that the premises does not in clude land for the time being held by tenure holder under any law relating to tenure, inasmuch as the petitioner has been holding the land under a law relating to land tenure. His fourth contention was that the Prescribed Authority and the ap pellate authority had not taken into con sideration the materials and evidences produced by the petitioner in the proceed ings itself. On these grounds, according to the learned Counsel, the impugned orders are liable to be quashed.

(3.) NOW question arises whether Category IV as mentioned in the Khatauni could confer any right on the petitioner or as to whether such possession recorded in category IV could be permitted to be hold ing of the petitioner as that of tenure-holder. As pointed out by Mr. Verma from the Land Records Manual Chapter VIII, Part I, Category IV means land held as occupier without title when there is no one already recorded in column 4 of the Khasra. Thus, the petitioner having been recorded in Category 4 is only an occupier without title since no one was recorded as in occupation in column 4 of the Khasra. This itself does not postulate that the petitioner could have claimed any title in respect of the said property. There was no material to show that the names of Gopal Dass, Nahar Ram and Lal Chand had any title in respect of the said land or that they were tenure-holders. It is also not on record to show that the land was held by hereditary tenure-holder. The petitioner has not claimed as to how he came into possession of the said land. He has also not claimed that he has inherited the land from the said Gopal Dass, Nahar Ram and Lal Chand. He is not claiming to be an hereditary tenure-holder, though he had been claiming that the land was held by said three persons as hereditory tenure-holders. But there is nothing on record to prove the same. The petitioner though claims to be holding the land for the last 14-15 years, but from the Khatauni it ap pears he held the land for last five years. Admittedly, the petitioner has not been able to prove his title to the property or manner in which he had come into posses sion of the said land. When a question arose that the petitioner had no title and he is not in authorised occupation, it was for the petitioner to prove that he is not an unauthorised occupant of the said premises. The petitioner having not been able to show that the land was held by him as a tenure-holder under any law relating to land, he cannot claim that the said land does not come within the definition of premises as defined in Section 2 (b) of the Act. There is nothing to show that how the land could be excluded from the definition of public premises. On the other hand, none of the aforesaid three persons had any title in respect of the said land. Since the land was held without any authorisa tion by the petitioner, therefore, his oc cupation cannot be taken out of the defini tion of unauthorised occupation as defined in clause (g) of Section 2.