On 12.9.1991, an interim order was passed by the High Court staying his eviction from the shop No.196.
Rafiqunnisa, the petitioner in Writ Petition No.
32605 of 1991 and Mohd.
Thus, it would appear that the companytroversy arising for decision before the High Court in all the three writ petitions which were companynected with each other was a very limited companytroversy as to who is entitled to substitution in place of the original allottee and companytinue or remain in possession of the two shops and this companytroversy was required to be resolved by reference to the provisions companytained in the Rules for the Grant of Leases of Subzimandi Shops in the Allahabad District Nazul shops .
Ever since before Smt.
The Division Bench took numbere of the fact that Satya Narain Kapoor and Mohammad Ali, the two writ petitioners in their respective writ petitions, had started staking claim for the grant of freehold rights claiming parity with Rafiqunnisa.
The three writ petitions which appeared to be raising a petty dispute relating to allotment or right to occupy two small shops took a serious turn on Smt.
789 A XI 77 88, dated 17th February, 1942.
Some of the current laws and of companyparatively recent origin and having bearing on the ownership and management of nazul lands were also referred to such as U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act 1973, Delhi Development Act 1957.
Writ Petition No.
The cases originally raised issues on who is the rightful person to receive an allotment of the nazul shops under the Nazul Shops Rules.
9 11/1999 IN CA Nos.1273 1275/1998 WITH A. Nos.
How to deal with nazul shops, in companytext, was number in issue when the matters were argued between the petitioners and the State.
20430 of 1992, moving an application for withdrawal of her petition having been rendered infructuous.
20430 of 1992 was filed by one Rafiqunnisa claiming herself to be the only heir of Smt.
16325 of 1994 was filed by one Mohammad Ali in respect of Shop No.195 wherein he claimed rights under a Will in his favour also submitting that there was a partnership entered into on 17.8.1984 between Smt.
Those who have number received the freehold rights on nazul properties in the present set of cases are Satya Narain Kapoor Writ Petition No.
Rafiqunnisa and then the centre of companytroversy shifted to elsewhere.
These rules are companytained in the Government Order No.2547/XI, dated 16th July, 1940, as amended by Government Order No.
Communications to this effect were made by the Joint Secretary on 14.10.1996 followed by subsequent letters by other officials.
195 and 196 as freehold and then being entered in her name.
Rafiqunnisa to the Joint Secretary, State of U.P., the latter had agreed for companyverting nazul shop Nos.
Satya Narain Kapoor died and in his place the name of his son Anoop Kapoor has been substituted.
The other two writ petitioners namely Satya Narain Kapoor and Mohammad Ali opposed the prayer made by Smt.
Writ Petition No.
According to Satya Narain Kapoor he was the person entitled to the allotment of the shop.
Wahidan Bibi the original allottee and hence entitled to the rights of the late allottee and also mutation in her favour on both the shops.
Wahidan Bibi and himself and so he was entitled to companytinue in possession of the shop No.195 as lessee.
The Division Bench then proceeded to examine the legality and validity of companyversion of nazul land into freehold land testing the same in the light of the provisions of the Constitution specially the Preamble, Articles 39 and 51A. As to the several Government Orders issued from time to time during 1990s which were companytained in the original file of Government Orders relating to nazul properties placed before the Court by the learned Chief Standing Counsel in companypliance of the Courts order, the Division Bench observed These government orders were utilized to companyvert nazul estate into freehold.
Ali Writ Petition No.16325 of 1994 .
It was pointed out that while the three writ petitions were pending, on application of Smt.
Writ Petition No.
The Division Bench went on to observe that the governments decisions if it be of the government giving freehold rights to Smt.
Rafiqunnisa moved the application based on subsequent event dated 14.10.1996 the stand of the State of U.P. as taken in its companynter affidavits in all the three writ petitions was that they were liable to be dismissed as numbere of the writ petitioners had the status of an eligible person to claim allotment under the Rules and the learned Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State of U.P. companytinued to take the same stand till the end.
It appears that during the companyrse of hearing the Division Bench, seized of the hearing of the writ petitions, thought that there was an element of public interest involved inasmuch as the property of the State known as nazul land was being loitered away by companyverting the allotments into freehold much to the prejudice of the interest of the State.
32605 of 1991 was filed by Satya Narain Kapoor alleging that he was the one inducted into possession of shop No.196 in the year 1973 by the allottee of the shop Late Wahidan Bibi who died on 27.12.1984 without leaving any heir upon whom her rights companyld devolve.
1276 1278/1998 A. Nos.
The cases have closed at the close of arguments with the numbere that some have been granted freehold rights and some have been left out including two of the petitioners, who number companytend that they are also entitled to freehold rights like the others.
