9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Constitutionality of the U. P. Public Land (Eviction and Recovery of Rent and Damages) Act XIII of 1959. 2. Whether the petitioners had acquired rights of hereditary tenants under the U. P. Tenancy Act of 1939. 3. Discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Constitutionality of the U. P. Public Land (Eviction and Recovery of Rent and Damages) Act XIII of 1959: The petitioners challenged the vires of the Act, arguing it was ultra vires the Constitution, particularly Article 14. They contended that the Act discriminates among unauthorized occupants of Government land by allowing the State to choose between ordinary legal proceedings and the more drastic provisions of the Act. The court examined the history and provisions of the Act, noting that the earlier Government Land (Eviction and Recovery of Rent) Act of 1953 was declared unconstitutional for similar reasons. The court found that the Act provided an additional remedy rather than an exclusive one, thus failing to exclude the jurisdiction of civil and revenue courts. The Act's discretionary nature in initiating proceedings and the absence of a limitation period for eviction made it more onerous than ordinary legal proceedings, thereby violating Article 14. Consequently, the Act was held unconstitutional. 2. Whether the petitioners had acquired rights of hereditary tenants under the U. P. Tenancy Act of 1939: The petitioners claimed they had acquired hereditary tenant rights under Section 180(2) of the U. P. Tenancy Act of 1939, making them not liable for eviction under the Act. However, the court did not delve deeply into this issue, given its decision on the Act's constitutionality. The court noted that the petitioners' argument was based on their possession for the requisite period, but since the Act itself was found unconstitutional, this issue became moot. 3. Discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution: The petitioners argued that the Act discriminates among unauthorized occupants of Government land by allowing the State to choose between ordinary legal proceedings and the Act's provisions. The court agreed, noting that the Act's discretionary nature in initiating proceedings and the absence of a limitation period for eviction made it more onerous than ordinary legal proceedings. This differential treatment of similarly situated persons violated Article 14. The court also highlighted that the Act's provisions allowed the Public Authority to decide whether to proceed under the Act or not, leading to arbitrary discrimination. Judgment: The court allowed the writ petitions, quashing the orders of the Public Authority and the District Judge, Nainital. The court held that the U. P. Public Land (Eviction and Recovery of Rent and Damages) Act XIII of 1959 was unconstitutional as it violated Article 14 of the Constitution. The proceedings taken against the petitioners under the Act were declared invalid.
|
