1978 (5) TMI 123 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
1. Dismissal of objection under U. P. Public Premises Act.
2. Validity of notice issued under U. P. Public Premises Act.
3. Allegations regarding sale-deed date and mutation.
4. Examination of petitioner's resistance against eviction.
5. Status of Amarnath as a tenure-holder and effect of surplus land declaration.
6. Petitioner's remedy under Section 14(3) of the Act.
7. Executive action for possession of declared surplus land.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner, a transferee under a sale deed, objected to an eviction notice under U. P. Public Premises Act, which was dismissed due to late filing. The appellate court held that a wrong section mention did not invalidate the proceeding, emphasizing the transfer before the prescribed date and mutation in records were correct. However, the petitioner's failure to object under Section 14(3) was noted.

2. The respondents alleged the sale-deed post-prescribed date made the land surplus of Amarnath, contradicting findings that the sale-deed was validly dated and mutated in the petitioner's name. The question arose whether the petitioner could resist eviction successfully under the Act's scheme, focusing on the Collector's power to dispossess a tenure-holder.

3. The petitioner's status as a tenure-holder was crucial. Amarnath, the original holder, transferred the land, ceasing to be a tenure-holder. The Prescribed Authority's declaration of surplus land without notice to the petitioner was deemed void and non-binding, violating legal procedures.

4. The State argued the petitioner's failure to object under Section 14(3) barred resistance to eviction. However, the court rejected this, emphasizing that the State's vested surplus land post-notification did not validate the invalid orders declaring surplus land, allowing the petitioner, in possession, to defend against eviction.

5. The executive action for possession of declared surplus land was discussed, highlighting the Collector's authority to take possession over validly declared surplus land. The judgment cited a case emphasizing the need for the Collector to clarify his power when challenged regarding the Act's application.

6. Ultimately, the petition was allowed, quashing the Prescribed Authority and District Judge's orders. The petitioner was awarded costs, with the Prescribed Authority permitted to initiate proper proceedings after inquiry and service of statement on the petitioner.