Shanti Devi & Others vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others

Ramesh Ranganathan, CJ

Heard Mr. I.D. Paliwal, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. B.S. Parihar, learned Standing Counsel for the State and Mr. Ashish Joshi, learned

Counsel for Nagar Nigam, Dehradun, and, with their consent, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission.

The jurisdiction of this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is invoked seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated

1.12.2019, and the impugned notice dated 18.12.2019 issued by the third respondent; and a writ of mandamus directing respondent nos.3 and 4 not to

dispossess the petitioners from Khasra No.910 till the final disposal of the writ petition.

Facts, to the limited extent necessary, are that the petitioner herein had earlier invoked the jurisdiction of this Court by way of WPMS No.3228 of

2019 questioning the action of the respondents in seeking to dispossess them from the said land. A Division Bench of this Court had, by its order dated

21.10.2019, disposed of the writ petition permitting the petitioners to make a representation to the respondent authorities within one week from the

date of the order. The respondent authorities were directed, in case any such representation was moved, to pass an order thereupon within two weeks

from the date of receipt of the representation, communicate their decision to the petitioner, and thereafter take action in accordance with law

including, if need be, for removal of the encroachments/unauthorized constructions.

Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the petitioners herein submitted their representation on 23.10.2019. It is their case that the third respondent did not

communicate any decision taken by him till date and, instead, they had directly issued the notice dated 18.12.2019 from which the petitioners came to

know that an order was passed by the third respondent earlier on 01.12.2019. The petitioners’ grievance is that, even without communicating the

order dated 01.12.2019, proceedings dated 18.12.2019 were issued directing them to vacate the said premises.

When the matter came up yesterday, we had granted time both to Mr. B.S. Parihar, learned Standing Counsel for the State Government and Mr.

Ashish Joshi, learned Standing Counsel for the Nagar Nigam, to obtain instructions. Today, Mr. Ashish Joshi, learned Standing Counsel for the Nagar

Nigam, would fairly state, on instructions, that the order which was referred to in the notice dated 18.12.2019, is not the order dated 01.12.2019 but an

order dated 18.12.2019; by oversight, the said order was not communicated to the petitioners; and, instead, a notice for eviction bearing the same date,

i.e. 18.12.2019, was issued directing the petitioners to vacate the premises within one week.

As noted hereinabove the order of the Division Bench, in WPMS No.3228 of 2019 dated 21.10.2019, obligated the respondents to communicate

their order (passed on the petitioners’ representation) before taking any coercive action for their eviction.

Since no such order was communicated to the petitioners, suffice it, instead of keeping the writ petition pending on the file of this Court, to set aside

the proceedings dated 18.12.2019; and direct the respondents to communicate their order dated 18.12.2019, passed on the representation dated

23.10.2019, to the petitioners; and, thereafter, initiate proceedings for their eviction in accordance with law.

Mr. Ashish Joshi, learned Standing Counsel for the Nagar Nigam, states that a copy of the order shall be communicated to the petitioners within ten

days from today.

Recording the submission of Mr. Ashish Joshi, learned Standing Counsel for the Nagar Nigam, the writ petition is disposed of granting the

respondents liberty to take action for eviction of the illegal encroachments after the order, passed on the petitioners’ representation, is

communicated to them.

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.