High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Chaudhary Mohhammad Mansoor v. Nagar Palika And Ors. - WRIT - C No. 16411 of 1984  RD-AH 7068 (7 December 2005)
CIVIL MISC. WRIT NO.16411 OF 1984
Chaudhary Muhammad Mansoor and others ...Petitioner
The Nagar Palika, Jhansi and others. ....Respondents
Hon'ble Bharati Sapru, J.
The present writ petition has been filed against an order dated 3.8.84 passed by the appellate authority under Section 9 of the Public P remises (Eviction of unauthorized occupants) Act, 1971 by which, the authority has sent the matter back on remand to the prescribed authority to decide as to who is the owner of the property in dispute and who was the proper party to issue notice under Section 4 of the Act to vacate the unauthorized occupant.
The facts of the case are that the petitioner holds a property in the city of Jhansi, which he claims is the property of Waqf.
The petitioner states that the Nagar Palika, Jhansi, wrongly had a notice issued under Section 4 of the U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1972 against the petitioner on the ground that they had encroached upon the land as described in the notice. The petitioner filed his objections and finally the respondent No.1 filed an application seeking certain amendments. The petitioner filed his objection to the amendment also. The Prescribed Authority passed an order on 17.6.72 and held that the land in dispute was not identified. This order was passed in favour of the petitioner in the present case. The respondent Nagar Palika filed an appeal. The appeal filed by the respondent Nagar Palika under Section 9 was allowed and the matter was remanded back to the Prescribed Authority for a fresh decision. It is, this order of remand, which has been challenged by the petitioner in this petition.
In the order of remand, the appellate authority has clearly said that it is not clear or identified as to who was the real owner of the land and, therefore, whether Nagar Palika was the rightful owner and is entitled to send notice under Section 4 of the Act to vacate the unauthorized occupant also became debatable.
Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the record, I am of the view that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the appellate authority. The appellate authority rightly remanded the matter back to the prescribed authority to go into this question. The petitioner is also not precluded from raising his objections over there, with regard to the maintainability of the notice itself, as the ownership of the property has been declared to be in doubt.
In my opinion, the matter is rightly been remanded to the prescribed authority.
Although, the matter was heard in the revised list, no one has appeared on behalf of the respondent Nagar Palika.
After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the view that the remand order is correct. The matter in remand shall be heard expeditiously by the prescribed authority, who will try and dispose of the matter within a period of one year. Till disposal of the matter on remand, the petitioner shall not be dispossessed from the property in dispute.
With this observation, the petition is disposed of finally. There shall be no order as to costs.
Dated : 7.12.05
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.