The Allahabad High Court has stayed the order of demolition and eviction of the house of Fakruddin Quraishi, resident of Ardali Bazaar, Varanasi.
The Division Bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and the Justice Manjive Shukla passed this order while hearing a petition filed by Fakruddin Quraishi.
The petition has been filed primarily for the following relief:
“To issue a writ, order or direction, in the nature of Mandamus commanding the Respondents restraining them from demolishing the construction of the petitioner without acquiring the property of the petitioner.”
Undisputedly, the petitioner is in occupation over the portion of the land described as house Mohalla Chamrautiya, Mohal Ardali Bazaar, District Varanasi. Petitioner claims title to the above property under a registered sale deed dated 23.12.1995 executed in favour of the petitioner’s father Late Nizamuddin.
Also, the petitioner relies on entries in the municipal records in his favour.
Undisputedly, the said portion of the land is required by the respondent State authorities for road widening from District Court, Varanasi to Sandaha via Ashapur crossing. The exact area in dispute being claimed by the petitioner is 42.85 sq mtrs.
In such fact, it has been vehemently urged, neither the petitioner has entered into an agreement with the respondent state authorities nor land acquisition proceedings have been initiated to acquire the above described property in dispute. Yet, acting in wholly high handed manner, the respondent authorities are trying to forcibly take over possession of the property in dispute for the purpose of road widening.
On the other hand, Standing Counsel stated that the petitioner has no title in the property. The same is described to be recorded in the revenue records in favour of the erstwhile Maharaja of Banaras under the category of Jamman 15(2) (a non Z.A. land). Therefore, it has been submitted, the petitioner has no right, title or interest in the property in dispute.
At the same time, it has been further asserted that 70% of the land owners have entered into an agreement with the state authorities. The remaining portion of the land of other land owners required for road widening would be acquired. Since the petitioner is not a bonafide land owner of the property in dispute, the said authorities are not willing to enter into an agreement with him.
In such facts, upon query made, Standing Counsel fairly stated, in any case, the state authorities have not entered into an agreement with any other person with respect to property in dispute.
Consequentially, the property in dispute would stand included in the remaining 30% of the land required for the road widening. According to the facts disclosed, that portion of the land required for road widening (30%) would have to be necessarily acquired.
Such being the facts brought before the Court, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the petition pending any further. While the title of the petitioner is in dispute, it is admitted to the state respondents that the petitioner is in occupation of the land in dispute though under a sale deed not recognized by the state authorities on grounds of absence of title to the vendor. At present, there is no suit or other proceedings instituted for cancellation of that sale deed, the Court observed.
Thus, in the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court disposed of the petition with the following terms:
(i) Since no agreement has been drawn with respect to the disputed property, it is left open to the state authorities to acquire the same along with other land that may be required for the road widening project undertaken by it. Alternatively, if any agreement is sought to be drawn between the state authorities and owner of the land, necessarily, the state authorities would issue appropriate notice to the petitioner at that stage and hear the objections to the same before entering into such settlement.
(ii) In case compulsory acquisition is undertaken by the state authorities, the petitioner would be permitted to raise his objection in those proceedings. Those objections would be dealt with and decided, in accordance with law.
Subject to above compliance, the petitioner’s possession may not be disturbed and his constructions may not be demolished, except in accordance with law.