State of U.P. vs District Judge and Others

K.N. Misra, J.—In these three writ petitions common question of law is involved for determination.

Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the contesting opposite parties were allotted land which was declared surplus in proceedings under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act. These leases were granted to the opposite parties for a period of three years under the provisions of said Act. They were sought to be evicted from the land in question u/s 5(1) of the U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972 (for short Act No XXII of 1972). The Prescribed Authority passed Order of eviction of the contesting opposite parties under the said provisions. Aggrieved by the order of eviction passed by the Prescribed Authority, Bhinga, district Bahraich, the contesting opposite parties preferred appeals which were heard and allowed by common judgment and order dated 6-4- 1979 passed by the District Judge, Bahraich. The appeals were allowed holding that the Prescribed Authority acted illegally and without jurisdiction in passing the orders of eviction u/s 5(1) of Act No. XXII of 1972. Learned District Judge has observed that proceedings for eviction of the allottees of surplus land made under the provisions of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act could not be taken under the provisions of Act No. XXII of 1972 referred to above. This order has been challenged in the present writ petition. Thus order dated 6-4-1979 passed by the District Judge, Bahraich has been challenged in writ petition No. 363 of 1980 and similarly order and judgment dated 13-7-1979 and 27-2-1979 passed by District Judge, Bahraich have been challenged in writ petition Nos. 879 of 1980 and 364 of 1980 respectively.

Learned Standing Counsel urged that the provisions of U.P. Act No. XXII of 1972 would apply because the land declared surplus had vested with the State Government under the provisions of Ceiling Act, and, as such, the allottees of such land could be evicted u/s 5(1) of U.P. Act No. XXII of 1972. I do not find any merit in this contention.

Public Premises has been defined u/s 2(e) of the Act No. XXII of 1972 which reads as under:

"Public premises" means any premises belonging to or taken on lease or requisitioned by, or on behalf, of the State Government, and includes any premises belonging to or taken on lease by or on behalf of....

(i)....

(ii)....

(iii)....

(iv)....

The perusal of definition contained u/s 2(b) of Act No. XXII of 1972 indicates that "premises" does not include land which for the time being is held by a tenure holder under U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960. In Baldeo Raj v. The State of Uttar Pradesh 1984 AWC 568 it was held by B.D. Agarwal, J., that ''the expression ''public premises'' in Section 2(e) of the Act was amended by the U.P. Act No. 2, 8 of 1976. The definition as amended excludes "Land vested in or entrusted to the management of a Gaon Sabha or any other local authority under any law relating to land tenures." This is so specified in Clause (i) of the definition appearing in Section 2(e) of the Act.'' In another decision Hindoo Pat v. District Judge, Hamirpur 1985 ALR 260 this question precisely came up for consideration and it was held that the eviction of agricultural or Bhumidhari land does not come within the ambit of scope of "premises" under Act No. XXII of 1972. Eviction of alleged unauthorised occupants of Bhumidhari land or land declared surplus under provisions of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act cannot be made under the provisions of U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972 Such alleged unauthorised occupants could he evicted only under the provisions of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act.

In view of the above, I find no merit in the contention of the learned Standing Counsel that the contesting opposite parties, who are allottees of said land only for a period of three years, could be evicted under the provisions of U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972. If after expiry of the period for which the lease was allotted under Sub-section (2) of Section 26 of the Act the allottees fail to vacate the land, then the Collector could resume the land u/s 26-A evicting them under Sub-rule 5 of Rule 59 read with Section 26-A of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act. Their eviction could not be made u/s 5(1) of the U.P. Act No. XXII of 1972.

Thus the order of eviction passed by the Prescribed Authority u/s 5(1) of U.P. Act No. XXII of 1972 was rightly set aside by the District Judge being without jurisdiction. The orders passed by the District Judge, Bahraich call for no interference by this Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Collector may proceed to resume the land in question according to law.

In the result, the writ petitions fail and are accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.