STATE OF UTTARANCHAL THROUGH COLLECTOR, DEHRADUN AND ANR. versus AJIT SINGH BHOLA AND ANR.

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 627 · Decided: 07-05-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N. SANTOSH HEGDE · Disposal: Leave Granted & Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

STATE OF UTTARANCHAL THROUGH COLLECTOR, 
A 
DEHRADUN AND ANR. 
v. 
AJIT SINGH BHOLA AND ANR. 
MAY 7, 2004 
B 
[N. SANTOSH HEGDE AND B.P. SINGH;JJ.] 
Uttar Pradesh Accommodation Requisition Act, 1947; Section 3(1): 
Premises in dispute leased out to an Educational Institution for use C 
as Guest House-Eviction petition filed by landlords on ground of 
bona fide requirement-Partly allowed by trial Court in respect of ground 
floor only-District Magistrate allotted the premises to Director General 
of Police for Camp Office/residential purpose-Cross appeals-Appeal 
filed by the Institute dismissed as withdrawn-Execution of the eviction D 
decree-Challenged by the State-Stayed by High Court-State requisitioned 
the premises-Writ petition dismissed by the High Court as infructuous-
Challenging the requisition order, landlords filed writ petition-High 
Court passed an interim order directing the State either to vacate the 
premises or to proceed under the Land Acquisition Act-On appeal, E 
Held: since the District Magistrate took over possession of the 
premises in a high-handed/arbitrary manner and without any legal sanction 
behind it, Supreme Court not inclined to exercise its discretion under 
Article 136 of the Constitution of India to set aside the interim order passed 
by the High Court-Land Acquisition Act-Constitution of India, 1950- F 
Article 13 6. 
Respondent-landlady and her two sons leased out the premises in 
question to an Educational Institution for use by them as Guest House. 
Later, an eviction petition was filed by the landlords on ground of 
bonafide requirement. Trial Court passed a decree of eviction in G 
respect of part of the premises. Hence, the cross appeals by the owners 
and the Educational Institute. However, the Institute has withdrawn 
the appeal. In the meanwhile, the District Magistrate had allotted the 
premises to the Director General of Police for Camp Office/residential 
purpose. Pursuant to the eviction decree passed, the landlords filed an H 
627 
628 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A application for execution of the decree of eviction. State filed objections 
which were dismissed by the Executing Court. Aggrieved, the State 
filed writ petition in which the High Court stayed the execution of 
eviction proceeding. However, the authorities concerned issued a 
notice under Section 3(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Accommodation 
B Requisition Act, proposing to requisition the premises in question and 
la for passed order of requisition in respect of the premises. In view of 
the order of requisition, High Court dismissed the writ petition as 
infructuous. The landlords filed writ petitions challenging the order of 
requisition as well as order of the District Magistrate in which High 
C Court passed an interim order directing the State either to proceed 
under the Land Acquisition Act or vacate the premises within a week. 
Hence the present appeals filed by the State. 
It was contended by the appellant-State that by the interim 
order, the High Court has virtually allowed the writ petition; and 
D that since the eviction order was in respect of the ground floor 
premises, only, eviction of the State from the remaining portion was 
not justified. 
E 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD : In pursuance of the order of the District Magistrate, he 
entire premises was purportedly taken over by the State for the 
residence-cum-office of the Director General of Police, Uttranchal. The 
State has neither been able to produce the order passed by the District 
F Magistrate in this regard nor has it been able to point out any law or 
rule which authorizes the District Magistrate to take possession of any 
premises in such a high-handed manner as has been done in the instant 
case. Having regard to the manner in which the District Magistrate 
took over possession of the premises, which appears to be high-handed, 
arbitrary and without any legal sanction, this Court is not persuaded 
G to exercise its discretion under Article 136 of the Constitution of India 
to set aside the interim order passed by the High Court, and thereby 
revive another illegal order. (631-F; 632-A-B, D-El 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3033 of 
H 2004. 
STATE v. AJIT SINGH BHOLA [B.P. SINGH, J.] 
629 
From the Judgment and Order dated 8.5.2003 of the Uttaranchal High A 
Court at Nainital in W.P. No. 217 (M/B) of 2002. 
WITH 
C.A. No. 3034 of 2004. 
Ranjit Kumar, G. Venugopal and Mrs. D. Bharathi 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.