Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 354 (UTT)

Roop Vasant v. State of Uttarakhand

2023-06-09

RAVINDRA MAITHANI

body2023
JUDGMENT : By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have sought the following reliefs:- “(i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing of the notices/order no. 3125, 3128, 1317, 3148, 3126, 3129, 3142, 3134, 3120, 3138, 3123,3122, 3156, 3145, 3144, 3143, 3121, 3150, 3149, 3136, 3157, 3119, 3139, 3132, 3133, 3130, 3131, 3147, 3155, 3146, 3153, 3124, 3135, 3141, 3152, 1318 dated 18.05.2023 (Annexure No.1) passed by the second respondent qua the petitioners, in the interest of justice. (ii) to issue any suitable writ, order or direction of any nature which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the present circumstances of the case.” 2. It is the case of the petitioners that a portion of land was given on lease by the Forest Department to H.N. Inter College, Haldwani (“the College”) sometimes in the year 1962. The College sublet the part of the land to the petitioners (“the disputed land”). The petitioners established their shops on the disputed land. Sometimes in the year 2000-2002, the Forest Department procured the eviction order, but till date, no proceedings were done based on those orders. They were never executed. The shops of the petitioners are on a very small space admeasuring 10 x 12 square feet. It is the space for earning their livelihood; most of the petitioners are running their medical shops. They have obtained license for the same, which is non transferable. It is further the case of the petitioners that in the year 2011, the Forest Department had issued eviction orders, but they were never executed. In fact, some of the petitioners did file the Original Suit No. 76 of 2022, Trilochan Singh and others Vs. H.N. Inter College, Haldwani and others (“the Suit”) in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Haldwani seeking permanent injunction, but it was not entertained in view of Section 15 of Uttar Pradesh Public Premises (Eviction Of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972 (“the Public Premises Act”). The Suit was dismissed on 31.05.2022, which was upheld by this Court on 10.06.2022 in First Appeal No. 113 of 2022, Trilochan Joshi and others Vs. H.N. Inter College, Haldwani and others. 3. The Suit was dismissed on 31.05.2022, which was upheld by this Court on 10.06.2022 in First Appeal No. 113 of 2022, Trilochan Joshi and others Vs. H.N. Inter College, Haldwani and others. 3. It is the case of the petitioners that they have received impugned notices for vacating the disputed land, but the process is not in accordance with law because the procedure for summary eviction of unauthorised occupants is given under Section 61-A the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (“the Forest Act”) which has not been followed. Therefore, all the notices are not in accordance with law and they deserve to be quashed. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the impugned notices are not in accordance with law. An unauthorised occupants may be evicted from the forest land in accordance with the procedure given under Section 61-A of the Forest Act. It is argued that the impugned notices are not in accordance with Section 61-A of the Forest Act, therefore, they are liable to be quashed. 6. On the other hand, learned State counsel would submit that the lease of the College had already been cancelled in the year 1995. Thereafter, Forest Department instituted a suit under Sections 4 and 5 of the Public Premises Act, which was registered as Suit No. 22/1 of 1995-96, Divisional Forest Officer Vs. Manager, H.N. College, Police Station Haldwani, District Nainital in the court of City Magistrate/Prescribed Authority, Haldwani (“the Public Premises Suit”) which was allowed on 16.06.2000 and the lessee was directed to vacate the premises. An order for eviction was passed. A appeal was filed, bearing Appeal No. 1 of 2000, Manager, H.N. College, Haldwani Vs. State of UP and others, in the court of District Judge, Haldwani, which was dismissed in default on 01.02.2002. Thereafter, all the petitioners filed the Suit which was not registered on 31.05.2022 in view of the bar, as contained under Section 15 of the Public Premises Act. It is argued that the notice for eviction, which has been given, has the strength of the order passed in the Public Premises Suit as well as the Suit. The petitioners have no right to remain on the disputed land. The notices are in accordance with law because it speaks that the petitioners are occupying the land in defiance to the orders of the Court. The petitioners have no right to remain on the disputed land. The notices are in accordance with law because it speaks that the petitioners are occupying the land in defiance to the orders of the Court. 7. Learned State counsel would also submit that, in fact, when the Manager of the College was required to vacate the property, he replied that he is not able to do so because, the disputed land has been occupied by the unauthorised occupants. 8. It is true that Section 61-A of the Forest Act provides summary eviction of the unauthorised occupants. This Section has been inserted by Uttaranchal Amendment Act No.10 of 2002. 9. The question which would fall for scrutiny is as to whether earlier proceeding for eviction that was passed against the original lessee would get nullified because of this amendment in the Forest Act by incorporating Section 61-A of the Forest Act. The judgment dated 16.06.2000, which was passed in the Suit categorically reveals that the property was given on lease to the College on 01.06.1961 till 31.05.1991. It was the condition of lease that the property would be utilized only for educational institutions, but it was used for other purposes. The order dated 16.06.2000 reveals that during inspection it was found that there were shops constructed on the lease land. Therefore, the lease was cancelled and order for eviction was passed. The College did challenge the order dated 16.06.2000 passed in the Public Premises Suit which was dismissed on 01.02.2002. Up till here the petitioners were not in the picture. 10. According to the notices itself the Manager of the College when asked to vacate the disputed land, replied that, in fact, unauthorizedly, the land has been occupied by some other persons and he expressed inability to vacate the land. 11. The petitioners did not have any title at all. They have not right whatsoever. They derive their rights from the original lessee. In para 11 of the writ petition, the petitioner have written that they were let out the shops by the College. The order for eviction of College has already been passed in the year 2000. Appeal against it had already been cancelled. 12. The Court wanted to know from learned counsel for the petitioners as to whether the Suit was filed by all the petitioners? The order for eviction of College has already been passed in the year 2000. Appeal against it had already been cancelled. 12. The Court wanted to know from learned counsel for the petitioners as to whether the Suit was filed by all the petitioners? He would submit that the Original Suit was filed by the petitioners and some other persons. The petitioners and other plaintiffs in civil suit had lost the case. They did challenge it in the appeal in this High Court, which was dismissed. The right of the petitioners to remain on the property had already been extinguished due to following events:- (i) In the year 1995, when the lease granted to the College has been cancelled by the State Government. (ii) On 16.06.2000, when in the Public Premises Suit, the original lessee has been directed to be evicted from the disputed land. (iii) On 01.02.2002, when the appeal preferred by the original lessee against the judgment and order dated 16.06.2000 passed in the Public Premises Suit has been dismissed by this Court. (iv) On 31.05.2022, when the Original Suit for injunction filed by the petitioners and other was even not entertained and finally, when First Appeal No. 113 of 2020, Trilochan Joshi and others Vs. H.N. Inter College, Haldwani and others filed by the petitioners and others, was dismissed by this Court on 10.06.2020. 13. In view of what has been stated hereinabove, this Court is of the view that now the petitioners cannot take shelter of the provisions of Section 61-A of the Forest Act for challenging the notices for eviction. Even otherwise, the land given to the original lessee was not merely the Forest Land, it was a lease granted to a College. As stated, the lease had already been cancelled in the year 1995 and an order under the provisions of the Public Premises Act has been passed. 14. Therefore, this Court does not see any reason to make any interference in the matter. Accordingly, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed at the stage of admission itself. 15. The writ petition is dismissed in limine.