Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 2117 (ALL)

Shaukat v. State of U. P. and Others

2011-09-09

RAKESH TIWARI, S.V.S.RATHORE

body2011
Hon'ble S.V.S. Rathore, J.: - Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. This writ petition has been filed with the prayer for commanding the respondent/authorities not to dispossess the petitioner forcibly from the premises/shop in question located at Collectorate, Azamgarh. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner was validly allotted a piece of land on which he had been carrying his shop for the last several years on monthly rent payable to the Collectorate, subject to annual renewal of the allotment which was renewed up to 31.3.2000. It is further stated that being threatened of his dispossession from the said Nazul land by the respondents, the petitioner submitted representation before the Commissioner who directed the District Magistrate to do the needful in accordance with law. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel has submitted that as per lease deed the District Magistrate allotted the piece of land to the petitioner for a period of one year i.e. 01.04.1981 to 31.03.1982; that the said land is the property of State/Collectorate and piece of land measuring 30'x 8' was allotted to the petitioner on lease of Rs.50/- per month for one year as per terms and conditions laid down in the allotment order dated 4.4.1981; that period of one year was thereafter never extended or renewed by the competent authority; that the lease has expired on 31.3.1982, hence status of petitioner over the property in dispute is of tress-passer. It is also stated that petitioner has violated Condition No. 3 of lease deed enumerated in para no. 20 of the writ petition as he raised pucca construction on the said land; that as per Condition No. 7 of the lease deed, the allottee shall not be deemed to have acquired any right or interest on the said land after expiry of the lease period. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusal of record, the Court is of the view that petitioner has no right, or title or locus on the land in dispute as after expiry of lease deed on 31.03.1982, the lease has never been extended in his favour and he also has not paid lease rent to the Competent Authority and seems to have been deposited in the Najarat Khana as mentioned in the written submissions filed by the respondents. The last receipt filed with the restoration application dated 22.4.2011 relates to the period 2010-11 wherein an amount of Rs.3456/- has been paid in Najarat and not in the office of the Competent Authority. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that he has already paid rent up to 2012 is misleading and incorrect. In view of this, the Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter. The respondents are entitled to take possession of the property now in the shape of shop over the aforesaid land, which has been constructed illegally by the petitioner in violation of the terms and conditions of the lease deed and has been enjoying the property causing loss to the State for last since 1982. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed with costs of Rs.1,50,000/-. 6% simple interest thereupon to be calculated since the date of expiry of the lease deed. However, it is made clear that amount deposited by the petitioner after expiry of the period of lease deed shall be adjusted towards the cost imposed by us.