Take notes as you read a judgment using our Virtual Legal Assistant and get email alerts whenever a new judgment matches your query (Query Alert Service). Try out our Premium Member services -- Free for one month.\n\nUttarakhand High Court\nNajakat Ali vs District Magistrate on 23 January, 2023 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL\n\n            Writ Petition (M/S) No. 245 of 2023\n\nNajakat Ali                                          ...Petitioner\n\n                              Versus\n\nDistrict Magistrate,\nDistrict Udham Singh Nagar\nand another                                         ...Respondent\n\nPresent:-\n             Mr. Abhishek Verma, Advocate for the petitioner.\n             Mr. J.S. Bisht, Standing Counsel for the State.\n\nHon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)\n\n             The challenge in this petition is made to the\n\nnotice under Section 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Public\n\nPremises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972\n\n("the Act").\n\n\n2.           Heard learned counsel for the parties and\n\nperused the record.\n\n\n3.           Learned counsel for petitioner would submit\n\nthat the petitioner is in possession of a land, which is\n\ncovered by the UP Zamindari and Land Reforms Act, 1950\n\n("the Zamindari Act"). It is argued that such land which\n\nfalls under Section 3 (14) of the Zamindari Act is not\n\npublic premises under the provisions of the Act. Therefore,\n\nprovisions of the Act would not come into play. Learned\n\ncounsel would submit that this issue has, in fact, been\n                                   2\n\n\n\nsettled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State\n\nof Uttar Pradesh Vs. Rabindra Singh (2009) 6 SCC 691. It\n\nis also argued that, in fact, the land in question does not\n\nfall   with    the   provisions   of   the   Act,   therefore,   the\n\nproceedings are non est and the show cause notice may be\n\nchallenged in the writ petition.\n\n\n4.            Learned State counsel earlier was required to\n\nget instruction in the matter, but he would submit that the\n\nofficer could not be contacted because of his occupation at\n\nsome other place.\n\n\n5.            Learned counsel for the petitioner would also\n\nsubmit that, in fact, the administration is determined to\n\nevict the petitioner because they are under political\n\ncompulsion. They may use bulldozer, which is a common\n\nphenomenon now.\n\n\n6.            The petitioner has just been issued a notice by\n\nthe Prescribed Authority under the provisions of the Act.\n\nThe law on the point of entertaining writ, in cases where\n\nshow cause notice is concerned is well settled. In the case\n\nof Special Director and another Vs. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse\n\nand another, (2004) 3SCC 440, the Hon'ble Supreme\n\nCourt, inter alia, held that "unless the High Court is\n\nsatisfied that the show-cause notice was totally non\n\nest in the eye of the law for absolute want of\n                            3\n\n\n\njurisdiction of the authority to even investigate into\n\nfacts, writ petitions should not be entertained for the\n\nmere asking and as a matter of routine, and the writ\n\npetitioner should invariably be directed to respond to\n\nthe show-cause notice and take all stands highlighted\n\nin the writ petition. Whether the show-cause notice\n\nwas founded on any legal premises, is a jurisdictional\n\nissue which can even be urged by the recipient of the\n\nnotice and such issues also can be adjudicated by the\n\nauthority issuing the very notice initially, before the\n\naggrieved could approach the court.."\n\n\n7.        In the case of Rabindra Singh (supra), the\n\nHon'ble Supreme Court upheld the principles of law that\n\n"the land covered under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition\n\nand Land Reforms Act, 1950 would not be governed by\n\nthe Public Premises Act, more particularly in view of\n\nthe specific exclusion as provided in Sections 2(b) and\n\n2(e) thereof. Even if Section 2(e) is broadly read, the\n\nland held by tenure-holder is not covered. It is\n\naxiomatic that if the land held by a tenure-holder\n\nunder any law relating to land tenure is not "premise",\n\nthen it cannot become "public premises" under Section\n\n2(e) of the Act."\n                              4\n8.         The application of principle of law as laid down\n\nin the case of Rabindra (supra), would definitely fall for\n\nscrutiny in the case, but the notice in the case was issued\n\nby Prescribed Authority under the provisions of the Act. It\n\ncannot be said that the notice itself is non est in law. The\n\nPrescribed Authority is competent to investigate the\n\nmatter. Therefore, the petitioner may very well reply to the\n\nshow cause notice raising all issues that have been\n\nhighlighted in the petition, as narrated hereinabove.\n\n\n9.         When these lines were dictated, learned counsel\n\nfor the petitioner would submit that a direction may be\n\nissued to the Prescribed Authority not to adopt bulldozer\n\nkind of demolition.\n\n\n10.        This Court need not issue any direction. It is\n\nexpected of every statutory body or functionary to take\n\naction in accordance with law. This case cannot be an\n\nexception. After the petitioner replies to the show cause\n\nnotice, the Prescribed Authority shall definitely pass an\n\norder in accordance with law.\n\n\n11.        With these observations, the petition stands\n\ndismissed.\n\n\n                                 (Ravindra Maithani, J.)\n                                    Vacation Judge\n                                      23.01.2023\nJitendra