Smt. Madhubala Giri and one another vs Estate Officer/Nagar Prashasak and others

Hon''ble B.S. Verma, J.—Heard Mr. Jitendra Chaudhary, Advocate for petitioners, Mr. K.P. Upadhyay, Addl. C.S.C. for respondent No.1, and Mr. V.K. Kohli, Senior Advocate along with Ms. Vandana Singh, Advocate for respondents 2 and 3. By means of this petition the petitioners have sought direction by this court to set aside the order dated 13-5-2006, passed by Estate Officer/Nagar Prashasak Haridwar in Case No. 35/1999, Bhel v. Smt. Madhubala Giri and another, whereby the application for staying the proceeding under U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971, has been rejected.

According to the petitioners in earlier writ petition the petitioners challenged the notice which was issued by the Estate Officer under the U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971. The petitioners had claimed title over the land in dispute and a suit for permanent injunction and declaration of their rights was also filed in the Civil Court. The direction was given by this court to both the parties to cooperate in the disposal of Civil Suit No.46 of 2002 and the earlier writ petition has been disposed of with further direction to maintain statusquo for three months and fifteen days.

According to petitioners during the pendency of this writ petition Civil Suit No. 46/2002 has been decided by Civil Judge (S.D.) Haridwar vide judgment dated 14-3-2008. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently urged that now there is no occasion to proceed with under Public Premises Act.

The respondents have also filed counter affidavit and averred that the stand was taken that the notice was given regarding plot No. 460 of village Ahmadpur Karchh Pargana Jwalapur, Tehsil and District Haridwar and the petitioners are claiming the disputed land to be plot Nos. 452 and 454, therefore, both the properties are different.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the above issue was also raised before the Civil Court and the Civil Court has decided this issue in civil suit and property in dispute is situated in plot Nos. 452 and 454 and not in plot No. 460.

Since the civil suit has been decided it is for the Estate Officer to examine the judgment of civil court what issue was involved before the civil court, and take a decision in the matter in accordance with law, after hearing the petitioners and giving an opportunity to petitioners to file judgment of civil court.

The writ petition is dismissed. The interim order dated 29-6-2006, passed by this court is vacated.