Radha Charan vs State Of U.P. And Others
2018 Latest Caselaw 600 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 40
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 273 of 2009
 

 
Petitioner :- Radha Charan
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- S.K. Vidyarthi,R.P. Tewari
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J.

Hon'ble Shashi Kant,J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

We have gone through the writ petition and the orders under challenge dated 9th September, 2008 Annexure Nos. 25 and 25-A are the rejection of the representation of the petitioner in respect of the grant of freehold rights in relation to the premises of which, the petitioner claims himself to be a valid tenant, the landlord whereof is Dharamshala Trust Rath Road, Urai. The Committee of the said trust is chaired by the District Magistrate/Sub-Judicial Magistrate.

The claim of the petitioner has been rejected on two grounds, firstly, that the petitioner is not a tenant of any local body, and therefore, the petitioner cannot take any benefit of the Government Order dated 01.12.1998, and secondly, as on the date of the decision of the representation, the policy for freehold rights in respect of the unauthorized occupants had been foreclosed. The contention of the petitioner is that he is not an unauthorized occupant, and to the contrary he is a tenant which stands recognized under the orders of a competent court reference whereof has been made in paragraph no.3 of the impugned order dated 09th September, 2008 Annexure No.25 to the writ petition.

It is therefore submitted that the petitioner is an acknowledged tenant with regard to which there is an order by way of judicial intervention, and as such to treat the petitioner to be an unauthorized occupant is erroneous on the part of the District Magistrate who ignoring the said fact has rejected the representation of the petitioner.

It may be further pointed out that matters relating to grant of freehold rights have to be now considered, keeping in view, the current Government Orders as also the judgment of the Full Bench in the case of Anand Kumar Sharma Vs. State of U.P. through Secretary and others 2014 (2) ADJ 742.

It appears that since the petition had been dismissed in default once, and for want of prosecution on other occasion, whereafter it was restored, the respondents did not choose to file any counter affidavit. We accordingly, direct the learned Standing Counsel to file a counter affidavit on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 and 2 within three weeks', and one week thereafter for rejoinder.

List thereafter.

Order Date :- 17.5.2018

M. ARIF