# Mahesh Sharma & Anr v. U.O.I. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 11 ILRA 57
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-09-20
- **Bench:** Ajit Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/mahesh-sharma-anr-v-u-o-i-ors-47879
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

A. Civil Law - Public Premises (Eviction of
Unauthorized
Occupants)
Act,
1971Petitioners are occupants of the premises
as a tenant or licensee of the railways and
the proceedings under the Act, 1971 were
claimed to be not as per the procedure
prescribed for and they appealed against
the orders passed by prescribed authorityApex Court observed in many cases that
the interest of occupants should be looked
into and therefore, interim order should
be granted so as to not to defeat very
purpose of filing the appeal-remedy of
appeal which is statutory in nature can
not be rendered as an empty formalityjudicial approach requires that during the
pendency of the appeal the operation of
an order having serious civil consequences
must be suspended-Nobody would doubt
if unauthorized occupants are liable to be
evicted but Rule of Law demands that the
procedure
prescribed
for,
must
be
followed.(Para 1 to 13)

The writ petitions are disposed of. (E-6)
List of Cases cited:
Mool Chand Yadav & anr. Vs Raza Buland Sugar
Co. Ltd. & ors. (1983) AWC 121

## Text

11 All. Mahesh Sharma & Anr. Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
57

24.

The
interim
order
dated
24.02.2022 passed by this Court is hereby
vacated.
----------
(2022) 11 ILRA 57
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.09.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J.

Matters U/A 227 No. 6427 of 2022 (Civil)
Alongwith other cases

Mahesh Sharma & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
U.O.I. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Kshitij Shailendra

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I., Sri Aditiya Kumar Singh

A. Civil Law - Public Premises (Eviction of
Unauthorized
Occupants)
Act,
1971Petitioners are occupants of the premises
as a tenant or licensee of the railways and
the proceedings under the Act, 1971 were
claimed to be not as per the procedure
prescribed for and they appealed against
the orders passed by prescribed authorityApex Court observed in many cases that
the interest of occupants should be looked
into and therefore, interim order should
be granted so as to not to defeat very
purpose of filing the appeal-remedy of
appeal which is statutory in nature can
not be rendered as an empty formalityjudicial approach requires that during the
pendency of the appeal the operation of
an order having serious civil consequences
must be suspended-Nobody would doubt
if unauthorized occupants are liable to be
evicted but Rule of Law demands that the
procedure
prescribed
for,
must
be
followed.(Para 1 to 13)

The writ petitions are disposed of. (E-6)
List of Cases cited:
Mool Chand Yadav & anr. Vs Raza Buland Sugar
Co. Ltd. & ors. (1983) AWC 121

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ajit Kumar, J.)

1. Heard Sri Iqbal Ahmad and Sri
Kishitij Shailendra, learned counsel for the
respective petitioners appearing in this
petition as well as in connected petitions
and Sri P.N. Rai, Sri Aditya Kumar Singh,
Sri Ajay Kumar Gautam, Sri Gyanendra
Kumar Dwivedi, Sri Hridaya Narayan
Mishra, Sri Ram Sarana, Sri Prahlad Singh,
Sri Sukhdev Singh, Sri Ishwar Das, Sri
Ajay Singh, Sri Arvind Singh, Sri Purnendu
Kumar Singh, Akhilesh Kumar Mishra, Sri
Ram Kinkar Shukla, Sri Shushil Kumar
Pandey, Sri Pranat Chaudhari-I, Sri Ashish
Tripathi, and Smt. Archana Srivastava,
learned
counsel
appearing
for
the
respective respondents in all the connected
petitions.

2. All these petitions raise common
question of law and facts and, therefore,
they are being disposed by this common
order.

3. The petitioners before this Court
are occupants of the premises either as a
tenant or licensee of the respondent-
railways and the proceedings that have
been drawn against them under the Public
Premises
(Eviction
of
Unauthorized
Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred
to as 'Act, 1971') were claimed to be not as
per the procedure prescribed for and hence
they have all appealed against the orders
passed by the prescribed authority.

4. It is argued before this Court that
though appellate authority, namely, District
Judge, Moradabad has admitted the appeals
58 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
but interim prayer for stay has been
rejected on the ground that petitioners were
unauthorized occupants. A legal submission
has been advanced before this Court that
the court of appeal was not justified in
assuming their status as unauthorized
occupants
even
before
deciding
the
appeals. It is thus argued that holding
appellants
-
petitioners
unauthorized
occupants is too harsh and amounts to
frustrating the very purpose of filing the
appeals.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners
have relied upon the judgment of Supreme
Court in the case of Mool Chand Yadav
and another v. Raza Buland Sugar Co.
Ltd. and others, 1983 AWC 121.

6. Per contra, it is argued by learned
counsel for the respective respondents that
unauthorized occupants are said to be
removed from the premises in question in
compliance of the order passed by the
Supreme Court passed in Special Leave
Petition (Civil) Diary No (s). 19714 of
2021.

7. Having heard learned counsel for
the parties and their arguments raised
across the bar, I am of the view that moot
question involved is as to whether the
petitioners before this Court were entitled
to get interim protection during the
pendency of the admitted statutory appeals.

8. It is a fact admitted to the
respondents Union of India and Railways
that in order to get petitioners evicted from
the premises in question they instituted
cases under the Act, 1971.

9. The Act, 1971 itself provides for
statutory remedy of appeal and hence every
person if aggrieved against the order of
prescribed authority is entitled to appeal
against the order of eviction. The appeals
being statutory one in nature have been
rightly admitted for hearing, but the
question remains to be considered is that if
occupants get removed/ dispossessed by
getting the order of eviction enforced
through coercive measures pursuant to the
orders which are appealed against, what
purpose would be left to get the appeals
heard, to wit only academic. In my
considered view, this can not be the
intendment of Legislature in incorporating
a provision of appeal. Remedy of appeal
which is statutory in nature can not be
rendered as an empty formality.

10. Supreme Court has observed in so
many words in the case cited (supra) that
the interest of occupants should be looked
into and, therefore, interim order should be
granted so as to not to defeat very purpose
of filing the appeal. Paragraph 4 of the
order of Supreme Court runs as under:

"4. We heard Mr. S.N. Kacker,
learned Counsel for the appellants, and the
respondents appeared by Caveat through
Mr. Manoj Swarup, Advocate. We are not
inclined to examine any contention on
merits at present, but we would like to
notice of the emerging situation if the
operation of the order under appeal is not
suspended during the pendency of the
appeal. If the F. A.F.O. is allowed,
obviously Mool Chand Yadav would be
entitled to continue in possession. Now, if
the order is not suspended in order to avoid
any action in contempt pending the appeal,
Mool Chand would have to vacate the room
and handover the possession to the
respondents in obedience to the Court's
order. We are in full agreement with Mr.
Manoj Swarup, learned advocate for
respondents, that the Court's order cannot
11 All. Dalveer Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
59
be flouted and even a covert disrespect to
Court's order cannot be tolerated. But if
orders are challenged and the appeals are
pending, one cannot permit a swinging
pendulum
continuously
taking
place
during the pendency of the appeal, Mr.
Manoj Swarup may be wholly right in
submitting
that
there
is
intentional
flouting of the" Court's order. We are not
interdicting that finding. But judicial
approach
requires
that
during
the
pendency of the appeal the operation of an
order having serious civil consequences
must be suspended. More so when appeal
is admitted. Previous history of litigation
cannot be overlooked. And it is not
seriously disputed that the whole of the
building, Hari Bhawan, except one room
in dispute is in possession of the
Corporation. We accordingly suspend the
operation of the order dated 6th August
1982 directing the appellants to handover
the possession of the room to the
respondents till the disposal of the first
appeal against that order pending in the
High Court of Allahabad. Mr. Manoj
Swarup requests that both the earlier and
later Appeals should be heard together as
early as possible, We order accordingly
and request the High Court if it considers
proper in its own discretion to hear both
the appeals as expeditiously as possible in
order to avoid the continuance of the
boiling situation. The appeal stands
disposed of. There shall be no order as to
costs."

 (emphasis added)

11.

Nobody
would
doubt
if
unauthorized occupants are liable to be
evicted but Rule of Law demands that the
procedure prescribed for, must be followed.

12. In view of the above, therefore, it
would be appropriate that the admitted
appeals of the defendants- petitioners are
directed to be disposed of within a time
bound period and until such decision, the
orders of prescribed authority appealed
against are put in abeyance.

13. Accordingly, all these petitions are
disposed of with a direction to the appellate
authority under the Act, 1971 to dispose of
the pending appeals of the respective
petitioners before it positively within a
period of three months from today and
petitioners
undertake
through
their
respective counsel to cooperate in the
disposal of appeal and until such disposal,
the effect and operation of the orders
passed by the prescribed authority which
have been appealed against, shall remain in
abeyance.
----------
(2022) 11 ILRA 59
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.10.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. JYOTSNA SHARMA, J.

Matters U/A 227 No. 8844 of 2022 (Criminal)

Dalveer Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Arvind Prabodh Dubey

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Constitution of India, 1950-Article 227Indian Penal Code, 1860-Sections 419,420
& 406-petitioners with his associates
made the victim to believe that he will get
them employed in B.S.F.-On this pretext,
he
extorted
money-a
forged
and
fabricated joining letter was provided-