WPSS/1556/2021
2022 Latest Caselaw 3209 UK

               Office Notes,
              reports, orders
SL.           or proceedings
      Date                                   COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No           or directions and
             Registrar's order
              with Signatures
                                 WPSS 1556/2021
                                 Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.

Mr. Bhuwan Bhatt, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Lalit Miglani, Advocate, for the respondents.

By means of this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the order dated 4.7.2020 passed by the Nagar Nigam, Haridwar. By the said order, a sum of ₹ 4,43,536/- was ordered to be recovered from the petitioner as rent for the land, unauthorisedly occupied by the petitioner.

According to the petitioner, the said land was allotted to him and he used to pay the monthly rent to the Nagar Nigam.

It is not in dispute that petitioner had filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction against the Nagar Nigam, Haridwar restraining it from forcibly evicting the petitioner from the land belonging to Nagar Nigam. The said suit was dismissed by the Trial Court vide judgment and order dated 27.4.2013. Petitioner preferred appeal against the said judgment and decree, which was dismissed on 8.3.2017. Petitioner thereafter filed second appeal, which too was dismissed by a coordinate Bench of this Court on 25.4.2017.

According to Nagar Nigam, despite dismissal of the suit, petitioner did not vacate the land, in question, and he retained the possession over the suit property even after judgment in second appeal. Therefore, Nagar Nigam passed an order on 4.7.2020, whereby petitioner was asked to pay rent @ ₹ 11,672/- per month for the suit property. Thus, an amount of ₹ 4,43,536/- was sought to be recovered from the petitioner and this is under challenge in this writ petition.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that after dismissal of the second appeal, petitioner had vacated the suit property, therefore, he is not liable to pay any rent thereafter. However, learned Counsel for the Nagar Nigam submits that after judgment of coordinate Bench of this Court in the second appeal, petitioner handed over the possession of the suit property to his son, who is enjoying the said property. In such view of the matter, the impugned order was passed for recovery of rent from the petitioner.

A counter affidavit has been filed by the Nagar Nigam. Para 8 thereof is reproduced below:

"That the contents of para no. 7 of the writ petition are false, misconceived and not admitted. In reply submits that the petitioner through his son is still in the possession of the land of respondent corporation and the letter dated 18.09.2017 is only camouflage, because in one hand the petitioner gives letter for eviction, whereas in another hand give possession to his son."

A coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 15.12.2021 directed the Sub Divisional Magistrate to inspect the property, in question, and submit his report. The report submitted by the SDM, Haridwar vide letter dated 18.12.2021 is on record. Perusal of the said report reveals that petitioner's son, namely, Sunil Kumar was found in occupation of the suit property at the time when SDM visited the place. The report further reveals that 2 sub-tenants, namely Bharat Chand S/o Gopal Ram, and Pankaj S/o Badal Ram have been also inducted over the suit property.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner also does not dispute that petitioner's son is still in occupation over the property, which was subject matter of the suit. However, he submits that petitioner is living separately and he has no connection with his son as he has disowned his son and, therefore, he is not liable to pay any amount as rent to the Nagar Nigam.

Since there is no material on record to show that the petitioner had handed over the vacant possession of the suit property to the Nagar Nigam, therefore, the order of recovery passed against the petitioner cannot be faulted with. Hence, I find no scope for any interference with the impugned order.

However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, writ petition is disposed of by directing the District Magistrate, Haridwar to get the unauthorised occupation over the property, in question, vacated within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.

Registry to communicate this order to District Magistrate, Haridwar within 48 hours.

(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 28.9.2022 Pr