The single judge bench of Justice Pankaj Purohit of the Uttarakhand High Court in the case of Gulshan Bhanot and others vs. the State of Uttarakhand and others held that no one is above the law to direct the eviction and demolition of the accommodation, without due process of law.
Brief Facts:
The present Writ Petition is filed to challenge the order passed by Respondent No. 3 in which it was directed to demolish the accommodation held by the petitioners, by their virtue of being the ex-employee of I.D.P.L./ respondent no.7.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner contended that on various dates while the I.D.P.L./respondent no. 7 employee was there, the petitioners were occupying the accommodation that had been made available to them and I.D.P.L was closed down on the decision of the central government and the decision was taken to give back the lease to the government of Uttarakhand. Furthermore, even after the lease came to an end, the occupation of the petitioners on the accommodations-in-question, which was allotted to them by I.D.P.L., can only be termed as an unauthorized occupation.
The learned counsel also draws attention toward the U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) which was enacted to tackle unauthorized occupants and their eviction.
Observations of the Court:
The Hon’ble Court observed that the petitioner's occupation of the in-question accommodations is unlawful or unauthorized following the cancellation of the I.D.P.L. allotment and the expiration of the lease agreement with the state of Uttarakhand. The rule of law should apply, and no one is above the law to order the eviction and demolition of the in-question accommodations without following the proper legal procedures.
The court stated that after the lease expired and the petitioners did not turn over their vacant possessions to I.D.P.L., they were no longer considered I.D.P.L.'s tenants. The Act requires the State Government to begin the eviction process. Since the petitioners obtained the disputed accommodations through an allocation made by I.D.P.L., they cannot be regarded as trespassers.
The decision of the court:
Based on these considerations, the Hon’ble Court stayed the order of demolition.
Case Title: Gulshan Bhanot and others vs. State of Uttarakhand and others
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pankaj Purohit
Case No.: WPMS No. 2076 of 2023
Advocates for the Petitioners: Dr. Kartikey Hari Gupta, learned counsel along with Mr. Rafat Munir Ali and Mr. Irum Zeba
Advocate for the State of Uttarakhand: Mr. T.S. Bisht, learned D.A.G.
Advocate for the Union of India: Mr. Atul Bhatt, learned counsel
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
