Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 370 (JHR)

Anand Pandit v. Damodar Valley Corporation

2010-03-25

AMARESHWAR SAHAY

body2010
JUDGMENT Amareshwar Sahay, J.-Heard the parties. 2. By filing the instant writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for setting aside the judgment dated 23.3.2006, passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Bermo at Tenughat in Misc. Appeal No. 30 of 2000, by which the appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 was dismissed and the order dated 18.5.2000, passed by the Estate Officer, D.V.C., B.T.P.S., Bokaro (Respondent No. 2), as contained in Annexure-9 to this writ petition, was affirmed whereby, the petitioner was directed to vacate the shop of size 15' x 15', situated opposite of Baba Medical in D.V.C., B.T.P.S., New Market, on D.V.C. Land at Bokaro Thermal, in Govindpur, Bokaro Thermal Police Station, on the ground that the petitioner violated the terms and conditions of the licence granted to him by unauthorisedly encroaching more than the area allotted to him for construction of shop. 3. There is no dispute of the fact that by an Agreement dated 22.2.1990, the licence was granted to the petitioner allotting a piece of land measuring 9' x 10' belonging to respondent D.V.C. for running a shop. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner constructed a shop over the said allotted land to him by the D.V.C. with permission of the concerned authority. 4. Admittedly, only an area of land measuring 9' x 10' was allotted to the petitioner for construction of a shop. 5. As per Clause 2 of the Agreement of Licence, which has been annexed as Annexure-1 to this writ petition, the petitioner, being the licensee, was not authorized to occupy any land beyond the area allotted to him under the said Agreement. 6. Mr. Atanu Banerjee, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that when the notice, as contained in Annexure-6 regarding cancellation of allotment was issued to the petitioner on 2.1.1999, then he challenged the said notice by filing Title Suit No. 14/1999 before the Court of learned Munsif, Bermo at Tenughat and the said suit is still pending for adjudication. He further submitted that since the matter was sub-judice before the Civil Court and, therefore, the Estate Officer was not authorized under the law to pass the impugned order and to direct the petitioner to vacate the shop premises. 7. On the other hand, Mr. He further submitted that since the matter was sub-judice before the Civil Court and, therefore, the Estate Officer was not authorized under the law to pass the impugned order and to direct the petitioner to vacate the shop premises. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Srijit Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for D.V.C. submitted that in view of the admitted position that the petitioner constructed his shop over an area of 15' x 15' i.e. on an area more than what was allotted to him and, therefore, there is no doubt that he violated the terms and conditions of licence and, therefore, the Estate Officer rightly ordered to vacate the premises on the ground that there was violation of terms and conditions of licence granted to the petitioner. 8. After perusing the impugned judgment passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Bermo at Tenughat, as contained in Annexure-10, I find that the Court below has rightly held that in view of the position that the petitioner violated the terms and conditions of licence and as such, he made himself liable to be evicted from shop premises, which was allot ed to him vide Annexure-1. 9. For the reasons stated above, I find no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment dated 23.3.2006, passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Bermo at Tenughat in Misc. Appeal No. 30 of 2000, as contained in Annexure-10, as well as in the order passed by the Estate Officer, D.V.C. (Respondent No.2). Therefore, having found no merit, this writ petition is dismissed without any costs. However, it is observed that if the petitioner again apply to the respondents for allotment of a piece of land for running a shop, the same may be considered by the respondents on its own merit.