- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Lord Shiva Birajman In H.B Yogalaya And Another v. State Of U.P And Others
Case Summary: CA No. 4981 of 1998 and Connected Appeals
Factual and Procedural Background
In Allahabad, an embankment known as “the Bandh” runs along the western bank of the River Ganges, with Triveni Bandh Road on its crest and a slope to the east where various structures, including the appellants’, are situated. Before the 1977 Kumbh Mela, part of the appellants’ upper-storey frontage was demolished by the State. Writ Petition No. 2809 of 1976 was then filed, prompting the State to undertake that no further demolition or dispossession would occur without notice under the U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972 (“Act 22 of 1972”). A second petition (No. 4409 of 1976) followed when a statutory notice was served, but it was disposed of after the Advocate-General stated that no demolition was intended and the State even funded repairs.
During preparations for the 1995 Ardh Kumbh Mela, the Mela Officer, invoking Section 16 of the U.P. Melas Act, 1938, again attempted demolition in 1994. The appellants responded with Writ Petition No. 25960 of 1994, seeking a mandamus restraining demolition or dispossession except in accordance with law. The Allahabad High Court dismissed the petition after examining title and alleged illegality of construction. The present batch of civil appeals challenges that dismissal.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether State authorities may demolish the appellants’ structures and dispossess them without first issuing a show-cause notice and providing an opportunity to be heard, particularly in light of the 1976 undertaking.
- Whether the High Court erred by delving into questions of title and other disputed facts not raised in the pleadings when deciding the writ petition.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellants’ Arguments
- The writ petition challenged only the proposed demolition without notice; it did not seek a declaration of title.
- Long-standing possession, coupled with past State actions, entitled the appellants to protection against summary demolition.
- The State’s 1976 undertaking precluded demolition or dispossession without following Act 22 of 1972.
- The High Court exceeded its remit by recording findings on title and other facts irrelevant to the limited issue before it.
Respondents’ Position
- Counsel did not dispute that natural justice requires issuance of notice and an opportunity to be heard before demolition or dispossession.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court’s Reasoning and Analysis
The Court agreed that the High Court should have confined itself to determining whether demolition and dispossession could proceed without prior notice and hearing. It held that adjudicating on title and other disputed facts was inappropriate in the absence of adequate pleadings.
The Court emphasized that the appellants’ possession is undisputed, the State had earlier undertaken to act “in accordance with law,” and, independently of that undertaking, principles of natural justice mandate a show-cause notice and hearing before property interference. The respondents conceded this legal requirement.
Given these factors, the Court found the High Court’s decision unsustainable and set it aside.
Holding and Implications
ORDER SET ASIDE; APPEALS ALLOWED; WRIT PETITION ALLOWED.
The authorities are restrained from demolishing the structures or dispossessing the appellants except in accordance with law. All contentions remain open for future proceedings. The decision reaffirms established principles of natural justice but sets no novel precedent.
Order
1. This order shall dispose of this batch of appeals. For the sake of convenience, the facts are taken from CA No. 4981 of 1998.
2. This appeal is directed against the Division Bench judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in WP No. 25960 of 1994 whereby the High Court has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellants.
3. In the town of Allahabad there is an embankment called “the Bandh” on the western side of River Ganges covering a long distance. The Bandh was made in the time of King Akbar. The road on the top of the Bandh is called Triveni Bandh Road. There is a slope on the east of Triveni Bandh Road. Various structures have come up along the slopes. The structure in the present case stands on the eastern side of the Bandh.
4. Before the Kumbh of 1977 was to take place, in a demolition drive, the front portion of the upper storey of the building of the appellants facing the road was demolished partially. Writ Petition No. 2809 of 1976 was filed and the State of Uttar Pradesh gave an undertaking to the Court that no demolition and dispossession will be carried out unless a notice under the U.P Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act (for short “Act 22 of 1972”) was given.
5. Subsequently, when a notice under Act 22 of 1972 was served, Writ Petition No. 4409 of 1976 was filed. During the pendency of the said writ petition, through the intervention of the office of the Prime Minister of India, the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh, directed that the demolished portion be repaired within a week and sanctioned an expenditure of Rs 10,000 for that purpose.
6. On the statement made by the Advocate General of the State of Uttar Pradesh before the Bench hearing the petition on 20-12-1976 that the State of Uttar Pradesh did not intend to demolish the construction, the writ petition was disposed of as not pressed.
7. In the year 1994 while making the preparation for “Ardh Kumbh” to be held in 1995, the Mela officer acting under Section 16 of the U.P Melas Act, 1938, in his enthusiasm, started demolishing the structures which had been put up by the appellants. Consequently, Writ Petition No. 25960 of 1994 was filed in the High Court seeking the issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to demolish the building and not to dispossess the appellants from the premises except in accordance with law.
8. The High Court instead of deciding the question raised in the writ petition as to whether demolition and dispossession could take place without issuing a show-cause notice and affording a hearing to the appellant, went into the entire history regarding the title of the land as well as the alleged illegal construction put up by the appellant and dismissed the writ petition. Thus the question which had been raised by the appellant in the writ petition has not been decided.
9. Counsel appearing for the appellant has argued that the challenge in the writ petition was not founded on any claim of title or ownership of the appellant over the land nor any relief of declaration of such title or ownership was sought. The appellant had claimed the right of user and occupation which was well established on account of various historical events and acts and deeds performed by the State and the structure put up by the appellant could not be demolished without issuing a proper show-cause notice as had been undertaken by the respondents in the earlier proceedings of the year 1976. Notwithstanding the aforesaid limited scope of the writ petition the High Court has passed the impugned order going completely beyond the limited scope of the pleas raised in the writ petition and recorded various findings of fact which were not germane to the point in issue.
10. We find force in this submission. The High Court should have focussed itself on the question raised in the writ petition as to whether demolition and dispossession could take place without issuing show-cause notice and affording a hearing to the appellants. The said question has not been decided. We are of the view that the High Court could not have adjudicated upon the question of title or any other disputed question of fact when sufficient pleadings on those facts were not there in the writ petition.
11. Admittedly, the appellants are in possession and enjoyment of the properties. In the earlier proceedings of 1976, the respondents had undertaken not to demolish the buildings or dispossess the appellants except in accordance with law. Otherwise also principles of natural justice demand that a show-cause notice and hearing be given before demolishing or dispossessing a person from the properties of which he is in possession. Counsel appearing for the respondents did not contest this proposition.
12. For the reasons stated above, the order of the High Court including the findings recorded therein are set aside and the writ petition filed by the appellants is allowed.
13. The respondents are restrained from demolishing the existing structures or dispossessing the appellants from the property except in accordance with law. Contentions on both sides are left open.
14. At this stage counsel appearing for the Cantonment Board states that notices have already been issued to the appellants under the Cantonment Act, which statement is contested and refuted by the counsel appearing for the appellants. If any such notice has been issued then it would be open to the appellants to raise all possible defences available to them.
15. The appeals stand allowed and disposed of in the above terms.
Alert