WPMS/1368/2010
2021 Latest Caselaw 3771 UK

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
                       AT NAINITAL
       ON THE 21st DAY OFSEPTEMBER, 2021
                              BEFORE:
      HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI

        Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1368of 2010
BETWEEN:
Najakat Ali Khan and another                          ...Petitioners
       (ByMr. Sachin, Advocate)

AND:
State of Uttarakhand through
Secretary and others                                  ...Respondents
       (Mr. R.C. Arya, Standing Counsel for the State/respondent nos.1 and 2
       with Mr. B.D. Pande, Advocate for Nagar PalikaParishad/respondent
       no.3)

                            JUDGMENT

Petitioner's father was an employee of Nagar Palika Parishad, Ramnagar, who was allotted a residential accommodation by his employer (Nagar Palika Parishad). Since petitioners' father did not vacate the residential accommodation even after his superannuation, therefore, proceedings were initiated against him under Uttar Pradesh Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1972 (for short "Act").

2. The Prescribed Authority ordered for eviction of petitioners' father on 17.10.2007, who filed appeal against said order under Section 9 of the Act. During pendency of the appeal, petitioners' father passed away and petitioners were substituted as his legal representative. The

said appeal has also been dismissed by learned District Judge, Nainital on 26.04.2010. Feeling aggrieved by the orders passed by the Prescribed Authority as well as Appellate Authority, petitioners have approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:-

i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order passed by the Prescribed Authority/S.D.M. Ramnagar dated 17-10-2007 in suit No. 22/52 Year 1999-2000 U/s 4 of Public Premises Act. State Vs. Ahdul Hamid Khan and order dated 26-4-2010 passed by the District Judge, Nainital in Appeal no. 03 of 2007, Abdul Hamid Khan (deceased) and others Vs. State (annexure no.1 to this writ petition)

ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding/directing the respondents to follow the resolution dated 7- 10-2008 passed by the respondent no.3 (Annexure No.4 to this writ petition)

iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding/directing the respondents to follow the provisions of Government orders (annexure no.2 & 3 to writ petition)

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

4. This Court does not find any reason to interfere with the orders impugned in the writ petition, as admittedly petitioners' father was allotted residential accommodation by his employer i.e., Nagar Palika Parishad while he was in service. Upon his retirement,petitioners' father had to vacate the said accommodation; however, he did not vacate the same although he retired from service in May, 1987. The Act provides for eviction of unauthorized occupants from public premises. Admittedly, petitioners' father became

unauthorized occupant upon his retirement, and a notice to vacate the house was also issued to him on 24.09.1987, therefore, the learned Prescribed Authority rightly ordered for his eviction. Learned Appellate Court was justified in rejecting petitioners' appeal.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is a Government Policy, which provides for disposal of municipal property in favour of persons occupying such property. He has referred to one document annexed as Annexure No.3 to the writ petition, in support of his contention, which is Government Order dated 17.06.1993. Petitioner's counsel has also relied upon a resolution passed by Board of Nagar Palika Parishad, Ramnagar on 07.10.2008, which is on record as Annexure No.4 to the writ petition. Perusal of the said document reveals that the Board of Nagar Palika Parishad has decided to confer ownership rights upon its retired employees on payment of price as per circle rates, in respect of such property.

6. Based on the aforesaid two documents, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners may be permitted to make representation to the Competent Authority for grant of ownership rights to them in terms of the Government Policy and the Competent Authority be directed to take decision in the matter at the earliest.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the Nagar Palika Parishad/respondent no.2 assures the Court that if petitioners make a representation for grant of ownership rights within two weeks, decision thereupon shall be taken by the Competent Authority, within two weeks thereafter. He further assures the Court that petitioners' representation shall be forwarded to the State Government, if need be, within the same time.

8. In view of assurance given by Mr. B.D.

Pande, Advocate for Nagar PalikaParishad/respondent no.2, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to petitioners' to make representation to Nagar PalikaParishad,within two weeks from today. If petitioners make such representation, the Nagar PalikaParishad shall either take decision thereupon within two weeks or shall forward the same to the State Government, if needed, within the same time. The State Government shall consider petitioners' request and take appropriate decision within four weeks thereafter.

9. For a period of eight weeks,status-quo,as regards possession, shall be maintained.

10. Petitioners shall continue to pay the amount in terms of order passed by this Court on 14.09.2010 to respondent no. 3 for the period they are in possession of the house, as unauthorized occupant.

(MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J.) Shubham