LexSTATE OF U.P. (NOW UTTARAKHAND) versus RABINDRA SINGH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
.. [2009] 7 S.C.R. 605 STATE OF U.P. (NOW UTTARAKHAND). A V. RABINDRA SINGH Civil Appeal No. 2831 of 2009 APRIL 27, 2009 B (MARKANDEY "KAT JU AND V.S. SIRPURKAR, JJ.) U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972 - ss. 2(b} and 2(e) -Applicability of the Public Premises Act - Held: Land covered under the Land Reforms Act would not be governed by the Public Premises C Act, more particularly in view of the specific exclusion as · provided in ss. 2(b) and 2(e) thereof - If the land.held by a ~ tenure-holder under any law relating to land tenure is not "premise", then it cannot become "public premises" under ce s.2(e) - UP Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 o - s.3(14). · The question which arose for consideration in the . present appeals was whether the lands which are covered by the definition in s.3(14) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 can 'be said to be E public premises and, therefore, coverecl under the U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972. Dismissing the appeals, the Court F HELD: The land covered under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 would not be governed by the U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972, more particularly in view of the specific exclusion as provided in Sections 2(b) G and 2(e) thereof. Even if Section 2(e) is broadly read, the land held by tenure holder is not covered. It is axiomatic that if the land held by a tenure-holder under any law relating to land tenure is not "premise", then it cannot 605 H 606 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 7 S.C.R A become "public premises" under Section 2(e) of the Public Premises Act. [Para 12] [614-C-E] B c D E F G H Baldeo Raj v. State of UP & Ors. 1984 AWC 568 and Kripal Singh v DJ Nainital & Ors. 1988 RD 188 - approved. Case Law Reference 1984 AWC 568 1988 RD 188 approved approved Para 7 Para 7 CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2831 of 2009 From the Judgement and Order dated 23.11.2007 of the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Writ Petition No. 3709 (M/S) of 2001 WITH Civil Appeal No. 2832 of 2009 Pinky Anand, P.N. Gupta, Vaibhav Jain, with him for the Appellant(s). Dr. Meera Agarwal, Ramesh Chandra Mishra, for the Respondents. The Judgement of the Court was delivered by V.S. SIRPURKAR, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. This judgment will dispose of the SLP (C) 11653 of 2008 as also SLP (C) 25729 of 2008 since both the appeals involve identical points regarding the applicability of UP Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972 to the land possessed by the respondents, more particularly, the lands vested in or entrusted to the management of the Gaon Sabha and or any other local authority under any law relating to land tenures. • -: ... STATE OF U.P (NOW UTTARAKHAND) V. 607 RABINDRA SINGH [V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.] 3. By way of the present appeal the State of Uttar Pradesh, A now State of uttarakhand challenges the judgment of the t':ligh Court whereby the High Court has allowed the Writ Petition filed by the respondent herei~. Shri Rabindra Singh. 4. Factual scenario is as follows: B The dispute relates to a land measuring 4.10 bighas in ...... -- Khasra Plot No.1371/24/1 situated in village Saran. The said land was in possession of the respondent since 1384 Fasli. __,,,,,_ The High Court has allowed the Writ Petitions by these two judgments holding that such lands would not be covered within c, the definition of "public premises" under the UP Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972 (hereinafter called the 'Public Premises Act', for short). Basically the question boils down as to whether the lands which are covered by the definition in Section 3(14) of the UP Zamindari Abolition and D Land Reforms Act, 1950 can be said to be public premises and, therefore, covered under the Public Premises Act. 5. We shall take up .the facts in this appeal arising out of SLP (C) 11653 of 2008. The respondent Rabindra Singh possessed aforementioned land since the year 1384 Fasli. He E claimed to be in cultivating possession like other respondents. --t He was served with notice under Section 4 (1) of the Public ., Premises Act directing him to show cause as to why he should ~ not be evicted from the land Khasra plot no. 1371 /24/1, measuring 4.10 big has situated in village Sar
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.