Hon'ble Sunil Ambwani, J.
Hon'ble Mohd. Tahir, J.
1. We have heard Shri S.R Pal in person. Shri Anil Mehrotra, Standing Counsel appears for the State respondents.
2. By this writ petition the petitioners claiming to be in occupation of the outhouse of Bungalow No. 6, Kanpur Road (Now P.D Tandon Road), near Boys High School, Allahabad have prayed for settlement/rehabilitation of the land occupied by them.
3. The petitioners have prayed for directions to quash the Government Order dated 1.12.1998 so far as it takes away the right of the settlement/rehabilitation of the petitioners on the land occupied by them and in the alternative to declare it illegal and violative of Art.14, 19, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India. The petitioners also prayed for writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to consider the settlement of the petitioner on the land occupied by them as per the direction issued by this Court in Purushottam Das and S.N Kapoor's case.
4. The petitioners claim to be poor persons belonging to backward class and are in occupation of the outhouses of Bungalow No. 6, Kanpur Road near Boys High School, Allahabad since the days of their forefathers. They claim to be in settled possession of the land on which they have made small houses from their own earnings.
5. We have gone through the writ petition and do not find any averment about the manner in which the petitioners were inducted or came in possession of the land occupied by them. The petitioners have impleaded Shri (Dr.) Ashok Kumar Srivastava son of late Dr. Radhey Shyam, resident of 318, Alopi Bagh, Allahabad as respondent no. 5 to be owner of the bungalow. They have, however, not given their legal relationship with the landlord.
6. The petitioners have annexed the voter slips issued by contestants in the elections to verify that they are the voters with their address at 6, P.D Tandon Road, Allahabad. They have also annexed the electricity bills and the certificate of change of meter on their outhouse along with receipts. No other document has been annexed to show the nature of the possession or any right, which the petitioner may have over the land claimed by them to be in their possession.
7. The Government Order dated 23rd May, 1992, which was amended by the Government Order dated 1st January, 1996 provided for regularisation of occupation over nazul land on payment of amount specified in the Government Order. These Government Orders were amended from time to time and were subject matter of interpretation of this Court in respect of individual leasehold rights or tenancy rights over the nazul land. In one of the case namely in State of U.P v. Purshottam Das Tandon, 1989 Supp (2) SCC 412 the Supreme Court made observations that the land occupied by poor persons should be settled with them after determining the surplus land in the hands of the lessees.
8. The short order of the Supreme Court is quoted as below:-
“1. We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties at length. We do not find any infirmity in the judgment and order passed by the High Court against which these special leave petitions are preferred. We however, make it clear that the leases that are going to be granted pursuant to the writ issued by the High Court will be subject to the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. On the leases being granted, the Competent Authority under the Act shall be at liberty to apply the provisions of the Act and in particular Section 15 thereof to all the leases and take away all the surplus lands in their hands after determining the surplus lands in accordance with law. The directions issued by the High Court can be availed of by all the lessees to whom the G.Os dated 23-4-1959, 2-7-1960 and 3-12-1965 were applicable and all those claiming under them.
2. All the Special Leave Petitions are dismissed accordingly with these observations. If any further directions are needed, the persons interested may approach the High Court.”
9. The present case does not relate to land declared surplus under Urban Ceiling Act. In the present case we do not find that the petitioner had made any application for either regularisation of their possession or for granting leasehold rights to them over the land occupied by them either under the Government Order dated 1 January, 1996 or for grant of freehold rights under any of the orders, which were issued by the State Government in modification of the Government Order dated 1 January, 1996.
10. The writ of mandamus can be issued, when there is legal right and that person claiming the right has applied to statutory authority, having statutory obligation to decide the application/representation or claim.
11. The petitioner has also placed reliance on the Government Order dated 21.10.2008 by which the State Government had provided for leasehold rights to be given to poor persons in unauthorised occupation of land for residential purposes to be settled with them under Government Orders dated 1.1.1996 on concessional rates. The State Government had after determining the income limit to Rs. 1250/- per month allowed the lease to be given on the circle rate prevalent on 30.11.1991, on annual rent with ten years interest to be paid in six monthly rent. By Government Order dated 10.12.2002, the unauthorised occupation by poor persons upto 1.12.1998 with income limit at Rs. 1700/- per month or under poverty line limit fixed by Central Government were directed to be regularised at circle rate as on 1.4.2002, in accordance with installments as provided under Government Order dated 1.1.1996 except for public utility land. Clause(5) of Government Order dated 21.10.2008 is quoted as below:-
12. It is submitted that the arrangement as above was continued in Government Order dated 26.5.2009 and Government Order dated 30.4.2010
13. In the present case we do not find that the petitioner made any application to the State respondents for regularisation or for execution of the lease in their favour nor they have deposited any amount for regularisation of their occupancy on the outhouse claiming into leasehold rights. In the absence of any demand from any statutory authority having a statutory obligation writ of mandamus cannot be issued.
14. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with directions that in case the petitioners are still in possession and apply for regularisation of their rights or for conversion of their right into leasehold rights, the District Magistrate will decide the application in accordance with law.
15. We are informed by Shri Anil Mehrotra, learned Standing Counsel that the Governmetn Orders for conversion of leasehold nazul land into freehold have since been withdrawn. In the present case the petitioners are not claiming such conversion. They are claiming their occupation to be regularised as poor persons and then to convert such rights into leasehold rights.
16. Without going into the merits of the matter we direct that the petitioners' application/representation shall be decided in accordance with the policy of the State Government as it stands on the day, when the application is made. If such applications are made within a month, the same shall be decided within next two months.
Comments