Harijan Sewak Sangh Iswar Saran ... vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others
2017 Latest Caselaw 3818 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

AFR
 
Court No. - 29
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 29013 of 2017
 

 
Petitioner :- Harijan Sewak Sangh Iswar Saran Ashram And Another
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Krishna Mohan
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Manish Kumar Nigam,Neeraj Tripathi
 

 
Hon'ble Tarun Agarwala,J.

Hon'ble Ashok Kumar,J.

Harijan Sewak Sangh Iswar Saran Ashram is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and have filed the writ petition praying for writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to get their hostel vacated, which is in occupation by the students.

The petitioner contends that the society is a unit of Harijan Sewak Sangh, Delhi which was established by Mahatma Gandhi. The society was founded to promote education and to uplift the weaker and poorer section of the society. The petitioner contends that Nazul land of the Government was allotted over which the petitioner established a group of institutions, namely, Post Graduate Degree College which is an associate college of the University of Allahabad and also established Iswar Saran Boys Inter College, Iswar Saran Girls College, Vikas Vidyalaya School, Primary and Junior High Schools which are located in the campus known as Iswar Saran Ashram.

The petitioners have also established a hostel to accommodate the students of Intermediate College, who joined the Allahabad University for graduation classes. The petitioner alleges that unauthorised persons have entered the hostel and are occupying the rooms and some of these unauthorised persons are not students nor are they neither paying any fees and are using the hostel facilities, viz, electricity and water without payment of any charges. In this regard, the petitioner had written several letters to the University as well as to the district administration for providing help to get the hostel rooms vacated which have been occupied by the unauthorised persons but the administration could not provide the necessary help for reasons best known to them and therefore the present writ petition was filed for writ of mandamus.

This Court while entertaining the writ petition passed an interim order dated 7th July, 2017 observing that the hostel which was managed by the University of Allahabad were vacated through the district administration and therefore directed the University and the administration to intimate the Court as to what measures they would like to adopt for cleaning the hostel of the petitioners. Before the matter could be taken up for further consideration, three students who were residing in the hostel filed an impleadment application. While considering the impleadment application the Court found that the students who had prayed for their impleadment had not paid any fee or charges to the society who were managing the hostel and that they were residing free of cost. Accordingly, by an order dated 11th July, 2017 the Court allowed the impleadment application and directed the newly impleaded parties to file a detailed counter affidavit showing their bonafides as valid allottees of the hostel rooms.

The students, namely respondent nos. 6 to 8 filed their counter affidavit alleging that the petitioners' society is a defunct body and is not a registered society. The lease deeds that was granted to them had expired in the year 1966 and 1975 and that they have no right to run any kind of hostel nor they are having a proper title over the land in question. The respondent contends that they are bonafide students of the university and are admitted in various courses and that they are validly residing in the hostel.

In addition to the counter affidavit the petitioners have also filed Writ Petition No. 31358 of 2017 making the same assertion and prayed that the order dated 12th July, 2017 passed by the Additional District Magistrate in which direction was issued to evict unauthorised occupants from the hostel be quashed. The petitioners have further prayed that a mandamus should be issued to the district administration not to evict them from the rooms in the hostel.

We have heard Sri Krishna Mohan, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Manish Kumar Nigam and Sri Salil Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 6 to 8 and petitioners in the connected writ petition.

During the pendency of the writ petition the administration went to the spot and after finding that respondent nos. 6 to 8 and others who were residing without any allotment order were directed to vacate the rooms pursuant to which respondent nos. 6 to 8 vacated the rooms of the hostel.

In this background the learned counsel for the respondent nos. 6 to 8 contended that the order passed by the Additional District Magistrate dated 12th July, 2017 issuing an order for eviction of the students from the hostel was without jurisdiction nor the administration had any jurisdiction to intervene in the matter which was between the petitioners and the respondents. It was contended that assuming without admitting that the respondents were residing in the hostel without any valid allotment order, nonetheless, the general law relating to eviction of unauthorised occupants should have been followed by filing a suit. It was urged that the use of police force to evict the respondents was wholly illegal and arbitrary. It was contended that prior to eviction of the respondents, a notice ought to have been given which in the instant case was not given. It was urged that the petitioners' society is a defunct body and that no one is managing the property and therefore the said petitioners have no locus standi to file the writ petition. It was also urged that the order of the A.D.M. dated 12th July, 2017 was based on an order of the High Court dated 12th July, 2017. It was contended that since there were no direction of the High Court to evict unauthorised occupants the action of the A.D.M. was per se illegal. It was contended that since they have been forcibly evicted they should be allowed to be given back the possession of their rooms. In support of their submissions, the learned counsel has placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Rame Gowda Vs. M. Varadappa Naidu (2004) 1 SCC 769 and Ram Ratan & Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (1977) 1 SCC 188.

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel for the students and the learned Standing Counsel, we find that it is not disputed that the petitioner is a registered society and was granted a lease in which educational institutions have cropped up and the petitioner is also running a hostel. The students have only come up with the stand that the society has become defunct and therefore they have no locus standi to file the writ petition. The fact that the society have become defunct is not supported by any evidence. On the other hand, on the basis of the assertion made by the petitioners and the affidavits of the administration it is clear that the petitioners have writing letters to the university authorities as well as to the district administration to get the unauthorised persons, who were not bonafide students evicted from the hostel. We find that the district administration had initially acted upon the representation of the petitioner but could not get the hostel vacated on account of lack of police personell and other administrative exigencies. The contention of the respondents that the A.D.M. has acted without jurisdiction is per se misconceived. We find that the order of the A.D.M. refers to an order of the Court dated 12th July, 2017 which apparently appears to be a typographical error inasmuch as the order of the Court is dated 7th July, 2017 wherein the administration was directed to intimate the Court with regard to the measures that they would like to adopt in cleaning the hostel of the petitioner from unauthorised occupants. The Court also finds that in the order of the Court dated 11th July, 2017 the Court had recorded the fact that the students, namely, respondent nos. 6 to 8 and the petitioner in the connected writ petition were residing in the hostel free of cost without any valid allotment order.

During the course of hearing the Court had placed a query upon the counsels for the students to show us any allotment order given by any authorised personell granting them permission to reside in the hostel. The petitioners in the connected writ petition and respondent nos. 6 to 8 failed to show any order of allotment of their rooms in the hostel. The writ petition and their counter affidavit is silent on this aspect as to how they are in occupation of the hostel rooms. We are therefore of the opinion that on the request of the petitioners and on the basis of the order of the Court dated 7th July, 2017 the administration was justified in evicting the unauthorised occupants from the hostel who did not have a valid allotment order.

The contention that since the students were in possession of the rooms whether validly or illegally, the general law applicable to lessor and lessee should have been followed and that a suit should have been instituted is patently erroneous. In this regard we are of the opinion that the law applicable to lessor and lessee relating to possession under the general law is not applicable. The concept of settled possession and the right of the possessor to protect his possession against the owner is not applicable in the instant case. It is not a case of landlord and tenant but is a case of students being given permission to temporarily reside in the hostel room during the academic session. The principle of lessor and lessee or landlord-tenant is not applicable. The respondents/students are only occupants of a room and since it is found that they were unauthorised occupants they could not claim themselves as tenants or lessees. Consequently, the action of the administration in throwing out the unauthorised occupants from the hostel so that the rooms could be given to the bonafide students was perfectly justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. There is another aspect. The general law relating to eviction of unauthorised students such as trespassers is not applicable as it will take years. In the instant case, the rooms are given to students for the academic session and when the academic session gets over the students are required to vacate the rooms so that the rooms could be allocated in the next academic session to new bonafide students. When such students overstay and start using the rooms unauthorisedly the law will come to the aid of the institutions to evict the unauthorised students where it finds unauthorised occupation by the students. Such plenary power can be exercised by the writ Court in the interest of justice. The decisions cited by the learned counsel for the students is not applicable in the instant case.

In the light of the aforesaid since we do not find any iota of evidence regarding valid allotment in favour of the students. We are of the opinion that the action of the administration in directing unauthorised occupants to vacate the hostel rooms was perfectly justified. Since the unauthorised occupants have vacated the premises the writ petition of Harijan Sewak Sangh has become infructuous and is dismissed as such. In so far as the writ petition of the students is concerned we find that there is no merit in it and is dismissed.

Order Date :- 30.8.2017

SK Srivastava

.

(Ashok Kumar,J.)    (Tarun Agarwala,J.)