Keeping in view the value of the subject matter which exceeded Rs.
By its order dated October 31, 1963, the Public Authority dismissed the objections, holding that the appellant has number filed any documentary evidence to show that the land in dispute was allotted to him by a companypetent authority, while the documents filed on behalf of the State show that it is a public land and the O.P. appellant herein is a trespasser thereon, and he is, therefore, liable to be evicted therefrom under Section 4 1 of the Eviction Act.
The appellant then filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before the High Court to impugn the orders of the Public Authority and of the Add.
From the Judgment and order dated 28 7 1967 of the Allahabad High Court in Special Appeal No.
Hence, this appeal.
The appeal was heard by the Additional District Judge, Kummaon Nainital, before whom the appellant reiterated the companytention that he had been in possession of the land in question for the preceding 12 years, and as such, had acquired the rights of a hereditary tenant thereon.
The appellant companytested the numberice on the ground that he was in its possession for more than 12 years and had acquired the rights of a hereditary tenant in the land under Section 180 2 of the U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939 for short, called the Tenancy Act .
12/ as damages payable by the appellant.
Against this order of the Public Authority, Jai Dutt carried an appeal under Section S of the Eviction Act to the District Judge.
3277 of 1966 decided on 13 2 67 was applicable to the case and the land in dispute will be public land and the possession of the appellant unauthorised.
In the meantime, the Eviction Act was successfully challenged before the High Court in Writ Petitions 3755 and 3756 of 1962 which were decided on May 24, 1968.
484 of 1969.
W.P. No.
The appellants special Appeal was dismissed by a Division Bench of the High Court on July 28, 1967.
20,000/ and the question of the Constitutional validity of the Eviction Act, the High Court granted a certificate under Article 133 l a and c of the Constitution, that the case was fit for appeal to this Court.
District Judge, inter alia, on the ground that since he had been paying rent for the land which has been in his cultivating possession for a number of years preceding the eviction proceedings, he companyld number be said to be all unauthorised occupant, but a hereditary tenant under Section 180 2 of the Tenancy Act The learned Single Judge of the High Court, who heard the writ petition, rejected this companytention with the observation that the Khatauni of 1368 Fasli entered the petitioners possession over the disputed plots as ranging from 1 to 6 years.
In the result, the writ petition was dismissed with companyts.
The Additional District Judge negatived all the companytentions and dismissed the appeal.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The Public Authority, Nainital served a show cause numberice, dated August 26, 1963, under Section 3 1 of the U.P. Land Eviction and Recovery of Rent and Damages Act, 1959 here inafter called the Eviction Act on the appellant for his eviction from this land on the ground that he was in its unauthorised occupation.
The petitioner, therefore, did number acquire any title under Section 180 of the U.P. Tenancy Act before 1953.
The oral evidence led by the petitioner does number outweigh the force of the entries in the Khatauni.
for the Respondents.
N. Dikshit and O. P. Rana.
352/67.
The Public Authority further assessed Rs.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SARKARIA, J. This is an appeal by certificate against a judgment, dated July 28, 1967, passed by the High Court of Allahabad in Special Appeal 352 of 1967.
1 He, however, sought to make out these points The appellant had been in cultivatory possession of the land for a number of years and numberaction for his eviction was taken for a long time and since numbersteps were taken by the Government to evict him evict two years of his entry into possession, he became a here ditary tenant under Section 180 2 of the Tenancy Act.
S. Gupta for the Appellant.
There, the appellant seems to have further companytended that he had been paying rent for his occupation of the land He appears to have shown some receipts also to the Additional District Judge.
On these premises, the appellant companytended that the land was number public land, and as such, the Eviction Act has numberapplication and the numberice was illegal.
Jai Dutt, appellant, was in possession of public land bearing Survey Nos 230, 131A and 131B, with an aggregate area of 80 Bighas and 19 Biswas in the area of village Guljarpur PurraamSingh, Tehsil Kala chungi, Distt.
Mr M. S. Gupta, appearing for the appeal, has number given up the challenge to the Constitutional validity of the Eviction Act on the ground of its being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, because this ground of attack numberlonger survives in view of this Courts judgement in Maganlal Chhagganlal v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay ors.
It arises our of these fact.
Nainital.
