# Smt. Deepika Singh v. Zila Panchayat, Bulandshahr & Anr

- **Citation:** (2016) 5 ILRA 1824
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2016-05-06
- **Bench:** Pankaj Mithal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-deepika-singh-v-zila-panchayat-bulandshahr-anr-43837
- **Pages:** 7

## Text

1824 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
-----------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.05.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PANKAJ MITHAL, J.

Writ C No.- 14422 Of 2016
&
Connected With Other Cases

Smt. Deepika Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
Zila Panchayat, Bulandshahr & Anr. ...Respondents

Held -

Paras 1-2: Introduction of three identical writ petitions involving a common legal question regarding the
competent "Prescribed Authority" under Section 3 of the Act. Respondents produced various government
notifications instead of filing counter affidavits.
Para 3: Petitioners challenge the jurisdiction of the City Magistrate, Bulandshahr, who is conducting eviction
proceedings against them regarding Zila Panchayat property.
Para 4: Records the appearance of counsel for all parties and their consent to resolve the legal point based
on the provided notifications.
Para 5: Petitioners argue that a 1974 Notification conferred exclusive power upon Additional District
Magistrates (ADMs), thereby ousting the jurisdiction of City or District Magistrates.
Para 6: Respondents argue that a 1972 Notification (which included City Magistrates) remains valid in the
absence of ADMs, claiming the 1974 order did not fully supersede the 1972 one.
Paras 7-9: The Court explains the statutory framework. Section 2(d) and Section 3 of the Act empower the
State Government to appoint Gazetted Officers as "Prescribed Authorities" via official notification.
Paras 10-11: Details the 1972 Notification, which appointed Sub-Divisional Officers (SDOs), City
Magistrates, and their Assistants as Prescribed Authorities for their respective divisions.
Paras 12-14: Analyzes the 1974 Notification, which partially modified the 1972 version. The Court held this
created a "uniform common authority," vesting power solely in ADMs and ending the authority of SDOs and
City Magistrates.
Para 15: References a 2009 High Court precedent clarifying that when an ADM is appointed, even a District
Magistrate cannot act as the Prescribed Authority.
Para 16: Applies Section 21 of the U.P. General Clauses Act, 1904. The Court concludes that the 1974
notification "eclipsed" the 1972 notification, effectively cancelling the jurisdiction of City Magistrates.
Paras 17-18: Identifies a 1998 Notification which further shifted authority. Under this latest notification, only
specific Labor Department officers (Labor Commissioner, etc.) are empowered to act as Prescribed Authorities
for public premises in U.P.
Para 19: Concludes that currently, District Magistrates, ADMs, and City Magistrates lack the power to act as
Prescribed Authorities.
Paras 20-22: The Court declares the City Magistrate's proceedings and orders (dated 20.2.2016 and
18.3.2016) null and void for lack of jurisdiction. The writ petitions are allowed, and the orders are quashed.
Writ Petition Allowed.
5 All. Smt. Deepika Singh Vs Zila Panchayat, Bulandshahr & Anr.

1825
Case Law Cited:-

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 27788 of 2009 (Kaluram Vs. Additional District Judge, Bijnor and others),
decided on 07.12.2009.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal, J.)

1. All the three writ petitions have identical facts and involve a common question of law as
to the officer competent to act as a Prescribed Authority under Section 3 of the U.P. Public
Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972 (in short 'Act').

2. Since the question raised in all the three writ petitions was purely legal in nature,
Standing Counsel and counsel for respondent No.1 were given time to obtain instructions and, if
necessary, to file counter affidavit. The respondents have chosen not to file counter affidavit and
have produced various notifications issued by the Governor of U.P. in exercise of powers under
Section 3 of the Act in order to get the petitions decided at the stage of admission.

3. The petitioners are facing proceedings for their eviction from the disputed premises
which belong to and are owned by Zila Panchayat, Bulandshahr before the City Magistrate under
the provisions of the Act. The objection of the petitioners that the City Magistrate has no
jurisdiction to act as a Prescribed Authority under the Act and, therefore, the proceedings before
him are without jurisdiction has been rejected by the orders impugned in the petitions.

4. I have heard Sri Amitabh Agarwal learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri C.B. Yadav,
Senior Counsel for the State of U.P. and Sri Nisheeth Yadav, learned counsel appearing for Zila
Panchayat, Bulandshahr. They consented for the final disposal of the writ petitions on the above
legal point on the basis of the notifications placed before the Court.

5. Sri Amitabh Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioners had argued that in the
notification dated 22nd August, 1974 published in the Official Gazette dated 31st August, 1974
(hereinafter referred as "1974 Notification") issued under Section 3 of the Act, Additional District
Magistrates throughout the State of U.P. have been conferred powers to act as Prescribed Authority
under the Act and, therefore, neither the City Magistrate nor the District Magistrate has any
authority of law to take cognizance of any matter under the Act as a Prescribed Authority.

6. On the other hand, Sri C.B. Yadav and Sri Nisheeth Yadav submit that according to the
instructions received from the District Magistrate, Bulandshahr there is an earlier notification dated
14th June, 1972 (hereinafter referred as "1972 Notification") issued under Section 3 of the Act
which confers the power of the Prescribed Authority under the Act upon all the Sub-Divisional
Officers and the Additional Sub-Divisional Officers within their sub-divisions; the City Magistrates
and the Additional City Magistrates within their city divisions and the Special Secretary to
Government of U.P. in Public Works Department for Lucknow and Nainital. The aforesaid
notification has not been superseded by the 1974 Notification and, therefore, in the absence of
1826 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Additional District Magistrates, the City Magistrates and the Additional City Magistrates continue
to act as Prescribed Authority under the Act.

7. The aforesaid Act provide for eviction of unauthorised occupants from public premises
and for certain incidental matters thereto. The power to draw proceedings for eviction of
unauthorised occupants from the public premises and to pass orders for their eviction, if necessary,
vests with the Prescribed Authority notified under the Act.

8. The Prescribed Authority has been defined in Section 2(d) of the Act to mean an Officer
appointed as Prescribed Authority by the State Government. Section 3 of the Act provides that the
State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette appoint Gazetted Officers of the
State Government or officers of equivalent rank or the corporate authority to be Prescribed
Authority for the purposes of the Act and define the local limits or the categories of public premises
in respect of which the Prescribed Authorities shall exercise their powers conferred under the Act.

9. Section 3 of the Act is reproduced herein-below:

"3. Appointment of Prescribed Authority. - The State Government may, by
notification in the Official Gazette, -

(a) appoint such persons, being the Gazetted Officers of the State Government
or officers of equivalent rank or the corporate authority, as it thinks fit, to be prescribed
authorities for the purposes of this Act; and

(b) defined the local limits which, or the categories of public premises in
respect of which, the prescribed authorities shall exercise the powers conferred, and perform
the duties imposed, on the prescribed authorities by or under this Act."

10. In exercise of the power under Section 3 of the Act the 1972 Notification was issued
appointing - (1) all the Sub-Divisional Officers and the Additional Sub-Divisional Officers within
their sub-divisions; and (2) all the City Magistrates and the Additional City Magistrates within their
city divisions to be Prescribed Authority in respect of all public premises except public premises
under the control of Government Estate Department which are situate in Lucknow and Naini Tal in
respect whereof the Special Secretary to Government of U.P. in Public Works Department,
Lucknow was conferred the powers of the Prescribed Authority.

11. The above notification for the sake of convenience is reproduced herein-below:

"In exercise of the powers under Section 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Public
Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972 (U.P. Act No.22 of 1972), and in
supersession of Government Notification No.4/Rajaswa 1/1 - 6(1) 72, dated March 3, 1972 and
No. U.O. 260 Rajaswa-1-72, dated March 17, 1972, the Governor is pleaded to appoint the
following persons being Gazetted Officers of the State Government as prescribed authority
5 All. Smt. Deepika Singh Vs Zila Panchayat, Bulandshahr & Anr.

1827
for purposes of the said Act and further to define the local limits as under within which and
the categories of public premises of which the said prescribed authorities shall exercise the
powers conferred and perform the duties imposed on prescribed authorities by or under the
said Act:

(i)

All the Sub-Divisional Officers and the
Additional Sub - Divisional Officers,
within their sub-divisions;

In respect of all Public Premises
except public premises under
the
control
of
Government
Estate Department which are
situate in Lucknow and Naini
Tal districts.

(ii)

All the City Magistrates and the
Additional City Magistrates within
their city divisions;

(iii)

The Special Secretary to Government
of Uttar Pradesh in Public Works
Department, Lucknow.

In respect of all the public
premises under the control of
Government Estate Department
which are situate in Lucknow
and Naini Tal districts."

12. The above notification clearly defines that:

(i) all the Sub-Divisional Officers and the Additional Sub-Divisional Officers
within their sub-divisions would act as Prescribed Authority in respect of all public premises;

(ii) all the City Magistrates and the Additional City Magistrates within their city
divisions would act as Prescribed Authority in respect of all public premises; and

(iii) the Special Secretary to Government of U.P. in Public Works Department,
Lucknow would act as Prescribed Authority in respect of all the public premises under the control
of Government Estate Department which are situate in Lucknow and Naini Tal districts.

13. The subsequent 1974 Notification reads as under:

"In exercise of the powers under Section 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Public
Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972 (U.P. Act No.22 of 1972), and in
supersession of Government Notification No.4/Rajaswa 1/1 - 6(1) 72, dated March 3, 1972
read with Section 21 of the U.P. General Clauses Act, 1904 (U.P. Act No.1 of 1904), and in
partial modification of Government notification No.41 Rev.-1-1(1)/71, dated June 14, 1972 the
1828 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Governor is pleaded to appoint the following persons as prescribed authority for purposes of
the said Act and further to define the local limits as under within which and the categories of
public premises in respect of which the said prescribed authority shall exercise the powers
conferred and perform the duties imposed on prescribed authorities by or under the said Act:

In respect of all public premises.

All Additional District Magistrates, Uttar Pradesh within their own
jurisdiction."

14. It states that in partial modification of the notification dated 14th June, 1972 all
Additional District Magistrates of Uttar Pradesh within their own jurisdiction shall exercise the
power under the Act as Prescribed Authority in respect of all public premises.

15. The 1974 Notification is plain and simple. It vests the power of Prescribed Authority
under the Act in respect of all public premises upon the Additional District Magistrates within their
own jurisdiction. In other words, the said notification empowers all Additional District Magistrates
to act as Prescribed Authority in respect of all public premises within their jurisdiction. The
aforesaid notification does not prescribe that the powers of the Prescribed Authority can also be
exercised by the City or Additional City Magistrate or that such powers cannot be exercised by the
Additional District Magistrates looking after the work of administration or finance & revenue. The
said notification rather provides for a uniform common authority to act as Prescribed Authority
under the Act.

16. Accordingly, after the issuance of the notification of 1974 only Additional District
Magistrates irrespective of the nature of work assigned to them alone are competent to act as
Prescribed Authority in respect of public premises within their jurisdiction except for public
premises situate within the area of Lucknow Development Authority, Kanpur Development
Authority and the municipal limits of Nagar Mahapalika, Kanpur or the public premises under
control of Estate Management Department situate in Lucknow and Nainital for which separate
notifications were issued from time to time in partial modification of the 1972 notification, and the
Sub-Divisional
Officers/Additional
Sub-Divisional
Officers
as
well
as
the
City
Magistrates/Additional City Magistrates ceases to be the Prescribed Authority for the purposes of
the Act.

17. One of His Lordship of this Court vide judgment and order dated 7.12.2009 passed
in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.27788 of 2009 (Kaluram Vs. Additional District Judge, Bijnor
and others) while dealing with the aforesaid notification of 1974 issued under Section 3 of the Act
held as under:

"When the State Government had appointed the Additional District
Magistrate as the Prescribed Authority under Section 3 of the Act, the District Magistrate
cannot decide the matter as the Prescribed Authority."
5 All. Smt. Deepika Singh Vs Zila Panchayat, Bulandshahr & Anr.

1829
18. Section 21 of the U.P. General Clauses Act, 1904 which is para materia with Section
21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 lays down the power to issue notifications, orders and bye
laws which includes the power to add, to amend, to vary or to rescind such notifications, orders
and bye laws. The said provision in a way while permits issuing of notifications, orders or bye
laws also enables the Government to amend, vary and to rescind such notifications, order or bye
laws. Thus, with the issuance of 1974 notification the earlier notification of 1972 stand eclipsed
and varied meaning thereby that the subsequent notification takes the field irrespective of the fact
that the subsequent notification is not coughed in the manner completely superseding the earlier
notification and rather provides for the modification of the earlier notification. In short, the 1974
notification has the effect of virtually cancelling the 1972 notification in so far it vests the
jurisdiction of the Prescribed Authority upon the Additional District Magistrate exclusively.

19. It also appears that after the 1974 notification a notification No.U.O.268/Revenue1/1-6(5)-77, dated January 24, 1978 was issued under Section 3 of the Act read with Section 21
of the U.P. General Clauses Act conferring powers of Prescribed Authority under the Act upon
certain officers. Thereafter a notification dated 24th September, 1998 was issued and published
in the U.P. Gazette of the same date conferring power of the Prescribed Authority under the Act
upon the Labour Commissioner, U.P./Additional Labour Commissioner/Joint Labour
Commissioner, U.P./Deputy Labour Commissioner/Assistant Labour Commissioner (Housing) in
respect of all public premises in the whole of U.P. and upon the Regional Deputy Labour
Commissioner within their respective region.

20. In view of the above notification of 1998 it transpires that after 1998 only the Labour
Commissioner, U.P./Additional Labour Commissioner/Joint Labour Commissioner, U.P./Deputy
Labour Commissioner/Assistant Labour Commissioner (Housing) and Regional Deputy Labour
Commissioner alone are empowered to act as Prescribed Authority in respect of all public
premises within their jurisdiction and no one else. Therefore, the District Magistrate/Additional
District Magistrate, City Magistrate or the Sub-Divisional Officer have no power to act as
Prescribed Authority under the Act. There is no other notification which annuls the above
notification.

21. Thus, in my opinion, the proceedings for eviction of the petitioners from the disputed
premises before the City Magistrate are wholly without jurisdiction and invalid. Consequently,
any order(s) passed by the City Magistrate in exercise of the powers of the Prescribed Authority
under the Act would also be nonest and null & void.

22. Accordingly, the impugned orders dated 20.2.2016, 18.3.2016 and 18.3.2016 passed
by the City Magistrate, Bulandshahr as Prescribed Authority under the Act in all the three writ
petitions are hereby quashed and a writ of certiorari is issued to the above effect. All
consequential orders thereof are also held to be meaningless, null and void.

23. All the three writ petitions are allowed with no orders as to costs.
--------
1830 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.05.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA, J.

Writ C No.- 20054 Of 2016

Chhotey Lal ...Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Shri R.P. Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Shri Manu Singh

Held -

Background and Core Issue
The petitioner challenged orders declaring his purchase of land from one Sumer Singh as void. The courts
below found the sale violated Section 157-A/157-AA of the Act because the vendor belonged to a Scheduled
Caste and the mandatory prior approval from the Collector was not obtained. Consequently, the land was
ordered to be recorded in the name of the State.

Petitioner's Defense: Ignorance and Limitation
The petitioner argued two main points: first, that the vendor had claimed to be from a Backward Category,
and the petitioner was unaware of his SC status. Second, he argued the proceedings were barred by time
under Rule 338 (Appendix III, Entry 19), which suggests a 6-year limitation period, whereas the complaint
was made 13 years after the sale.

The Nature of a "Void" Transaction
The Court held that under Section 166, any transfer made in contravention of the Act is void ab initio (void
from the beginning). Since the transfer was legally non-existent from its inception, it can be ignored at any
time. The Court emphasized that no limitation period can be attached to declaring a transaction void that the
law already deems non-existent.

Analysis of Rule 338 and Appendix III
The Court rejected the reliance on Entry 19 of Appendix III, noting it pertains to Section 163, which was
omitted from the Act in 1982. The Court clarified that Section 166 (the current governing provision) was
introduced later and does not have a corresponding limitation entry in the Appendix. Furthermore, Entry 20
was deemed irrelevant as it applies only to "sirdars" or "asamis," not "bhumidhars" like the petitioner's
vendor.

Hierarchy of Laws: Act vs. Rules