Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 392 (UTT)

Shoorveer Singh Sajwan v. State of Uttarakhand

2023-07-05

RAVINDRA MAITHANI

body2023
JUDGMENT : RAVINDRA MAITHANI, J. 1. By means of the instant petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs: (i) Issue a writ of order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order/notice dated 28.04.2023 passed by respondent no. 6 (ANNEXURE NO. 1). (ii) Issue a writ of order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere in the peaceful possession of the petitioner’s property at C-4/22 type 3 New Tehri. (iii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respdnent authorities not to proceed further pursuant to the notice/order dated 28.04.2023 till the disposal of his claim before the respondent authorities. (iv) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to decide the claim of the petitioner for rehabilitation/allotment of plots and compensation as soon as possible. (v) Issue any other or further writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that he was the resident of old Tehri town. The petitioner along with his brother and one relative were having a hotel Madhuban at Ward No. 8, Ghanshali Road, Old Tehri town. Due to construction of Tehri Dam Project, the petitioners and others were to be shifted from old Tehri town and to the new Tehri town and at the relevant time, the then District Administration directed the petitioner and some other similarly situated persons to stay at C-4/2, Type III in Tehri Garhwal. Since then, the petitioner has been peacefully staying in the accommodation. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that the impugned notices have been issued pursuant to the judgment and order 21.02.2023, passed in the WPPIL No. 144 of 2022, Sunil Prasad Bhatt vs. State of Uttarakhand and others (for short “the PIL”). But the PIL relates to the Government employees and Government servants specifically. The petitioner is not the Government employee. 5. It is further case of the petitioner that the judgment and order dated 21.02.2023, passed in the PIL at all not applicable in the case of the petitioner because he was shifted from the old Tehri town to new Tehri town under the direction of the District Administration. 6. The petitioner is not the Government employee. 5. It is further case of the petitioner that the judgment and order dated 21.02.2023, passed in the PIL at all not applicable in the case of the petitioner because he was shifted from the old Tehri town to new Tehri town under the direction of the District Administration. 6. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the judgment and order dated 21.02.2023, passed in the PIL relates to the Government employees and Government servants, those who have been continuing in the Government accommodation after their retirement or encroaching on the Government accommodation. He would also submit the following arguments: (i) The petitioner is not a Government servant. (ii) He has been staying in a premises under the directions of the then District Administration. (iii) The case of the petitioner is not governed by the directions of this Court dated 21.02.2023, passed in the PIL. 7. By the impugned notice, in fact, the petitioner had been required to produce the documents of possession over the premises or else deposit the rent as specified. 8. The Court at the very outset wanted to know from the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, as to under what authority, the petitioner has been staying in the Government accommodation? He would submit that under the oral directions of the District Administration. 9. Another question, which was posed, as to whether the petitioner did ever pay any rent to the District Administration? The answer is in negative. 10. In the PIL, although in Para 4, the Court has also referred to the Government Servant, but, in fact, the beginning line of Para 4 in the judgment passed in the PIL on 21.02.2022, referred to the Government accommodation and it reads “Government accommodation is meant to be occupied by government servants who are entitle to the same under the Rules.” Para 4 of the judgment, as follows: “4. Government accommodation is meant to be occupied by government servants who are entitle to the same under the Rules. It is not uncommon to see government accommodation not being vacated by the government servants once they retire, or are transferred, and they continue to hold the accommodation even after their entitlement thereto has come to an end; without obtaining any extension, or; without making payment for their continued occupation. It is not uncommon to see government accommodation not being vacated by the government servants once they retire, or are transferred, and they continue to hold the accommodation even after their entitlement thereto has come to an end; without obtaining any extension, or; without making payment for their continued occupation. In our view, this creates difficulties for others who may become entitle to allotment of such accommodations. Government accommodation is allotted to government servants near to their place of work/posting, so as to enable them to discharge their duties and responsibilities efficiently and effectively. Non-availability of government accommodation to those, who are entitled to it, is bound to impact the efficiency and functioning of government servants who are denied such accommodation due to their occupation by unauthorized occupants.” 11. After the above narration, the Court in Para 5 issued directions in the PIL as follows: “5. We, therefore, dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the Secretary, Uttarakhand State Estate Department, to compile information in respect of all government accommodations which are in unauthorized occupation; to compute penal charges/rent payable by such unauthorized occupants for the accommodation unauthorizedly held by them; to initiate proceedings for eviction of such unauthorized occupants of government accommodations, if not already done, and; to recover penal charges from such unauthorized occupants. Steps in these terms should be taken within four weeks under intimation to the petitioner. In case, the respondents do not act, it shall be open to the petitioner to seek revival of this petition.” 12. A bare perusal of the directions, as quoted hereinabove passed in the PIL on 21.02.2022, makes it abundantly clear that it is Government Accommodation Centric. It speaks of unauthorized occupants on Government accommodation. By the impugned notice dated 28.04.2023, the petitioner has been termed as unauthorized occupant of the Government accommodation. Therefore, it cannot be said that the judgment and order dated 21.02.2023, passed in the PIL is not applicable in the case of the petitioner. Its facts are squarely covered. 13. The petitioner has not produced any document, which may authorized his possession on the Government accommodation. On mere saying that somebody from the District Administration had permitted the petitioner to stay in the Government accommodation does not validate the possession. The petitioner has not been paying any rent. Its facts are squarely covered. 13. The petitioner has not produced any document, which may authorized his possession on the Government accommodation. On mere saying that somebody from the District Administration had permitted the petitioner to stay in the Government accommodation does not validate the possession. The petitioner has not been paying any rent. By the impugned notice, the petitioner has been required to produce the document of his possession, pay rent and vacate the premises. The petitioner has ample opportunities to approach the competent authority in response to their notice and place documents, as stated. In fact, the petitioner has no case. 14. In view of the forgoing discussion, this Court is of the view that there is no material to interfere in this petition. Accordingly, the petition deserves to be dismissed at the stage of admission itself. 15. The petition is dismissed in limine.