Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. And Another vs Lala Murari Lal Agrawal And Others on 24 May, 2023
Bench: Alok Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:116251
Court No. - 9
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 3873 of 2008
Petitioner :- State Of U.P. And Another
Respondent :- Lala Murari Lal Agrawal And Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- P.C. Shukla Addl.C.S.C.
Counsel for Respondent :- Amit Kr. Srivastava,Amit Kumar Srivastava,S.M Iqubal.Hasan,SC
Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. This writ petition has been filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh assailing the order dated 17.10.2007 passed by District Judge, Shahjahanpur in exercise of the powers under Section 9 of U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1972 (in short the Act of 1972).
3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that a notice under the Act of 1972 was served upon the Lal Murari Lal Agarwal and three others who were allegedly occupying the public premises at Khasra No.1431 area 0.158 hectare situated at Meeranpur Katra, Town Area Pargana Katra, Tahsil Tilhar, District Shahjahanpur. It was stated that the property is recorded as Police Chowki in revenue records which is constructed of gumma bricks and was obstructing in traffic and according to the said notice the respondents were not authorized to occupy the said property and proceedings were initiated for their eviction. Subsequently objections were filed stating that the said property was not a government property nor the police is the owner of the land in question while on the other hand, respondent No.1 was the owner of the said property as the same was purchased by Smt. Jamuna Devi, the mother of respondent No.1 through registered sale deed on 20.12.1950. It was further stated that since 1950 the mother of respondent No.1 was in possession of the property and is owned by Jamuna Devi and her legal heirs are in possession of the same. It was further stated that after purchase of the said property in 1950 Smt. Jamuna Devi raised a construction over the said property and in this regard the respondents are in authorized occupation of the said property and accordingly they prayed for discharge of the notice.
4. The Prescribed Authority after hearing both the parties had framed six issues and all the issues were decided in favour of the petitioner as against respondent No.1 and the said property was held to be a public premises and the respondents were held to be in unauthorized occupation of the said property and accordingly were directed to vacate the said property within fifteen days and also to pay a sum of Rs.3,28,000/- to the petitioner and Rs.8000/- per month for damages till handing over the said property to the petitioners.
5. Respondent No.1 aggrieved of the judgment and order of the Prescribed Authority filed civil appeal before District Judge, Shahjahanpur on 28.1.2001, who by means of the impugned judgment and order dated 17.10.2007 has considered the issues raised in details and the appeal was allowed holding that one Iqtedaruddin and others have sold the said property through registered sale deed on 20.12.1950 to Smt. Jamuna Devi. The said registered deed was filed before the court. It was further stated that the said sale deed has not been cancelled by any competent authority and the said sale deed was sufficient to show the ownership and possession of the respondents. Further the court noticed that the Khewat of 1403 to1406 Fasli was also filed where name of Iqtedaruddin was recorded against the said property which indicated that the same was in possession of its previous owner. It is further noticed that name of Iqtedaruddin appeared in the revenue records in Khewat from 1387 to 1399 fasli. The only ground on which the petitioner has assailed the said order is that the said property has been indicated to be a Police Chowki in Khatauni from 1406 to 1407 fasli. It is stated that merely mentioning of Police Chowki in khasra and khatauni does not raise presumption of ownership of the said property. The appellate authority had returned a finding that contents of the sale deed could not be disputed as the sale deed was thirty years old. There is no record or document filed by the petitioner to indicate that the said property stand vested in the government and accordingly allowed the appeal and held that the respondents were the owners of the said property and would not be subjected to a public premises under the Act of 1972.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has supported the impugned order and submitted that sufficient material and evidence was filed by the respondents to indicate that they are the owner and in possession of the said property. Even the petitioner in the present petition had not disputed the contents of the sale deed nor could they show any material to indicate that the proceedings under the Act of 1972 were ever undertaken by them.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
8.The appellate authority has duly considered the entire evidence placed before it and has taken note of the fact that the sale deed was registered in the name of Smt. Jamuna Devi in the year 1950 and the respondents are owner in possession since 1950 on-wards. On the other hand, the petitioners have only claimed ownership of the said property merely on the basis of the khatauni for the year 1406 to 1407 fasli. It has rightly been concluded that khasra and khatauni do not create title in favour of any person and merely at best it can indicate possession of the said property.
9. The respondents, on the other hand, had adduced sufficient evidence in the form of the sale deed of 1950 to show ownership and possession before this Court. No other material could be placed by the petitioners to enable this Court to take a different view of the matter and interfere with the findings recorded by the District Judge with regard to the disputed property.
10. In light of the above, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by District Judge in exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution and accordingly the writ petition being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed.
Order Date :- 24.5.2023 (Alok Mathur, J.)
RKM.
