Latest news with #PublicPremisesAct
Hans India
6 days ago
- Politics
- Hans India
SC permits Samajwadi Party to approach HC over office allotment cancellation in Pilibhit
The Supreme Court on Monday permitted the Samajwadi Party to petition the Allahabad High Court over the cancellation of its office allotment in Uttar Pradesh's Pilibhit. A bench of Justices Sandeep Mehta and Prasanna B. Varale was hearing a special leave petition (SLP) by the Samajwadi Party against a decision of the Allahabad High Court which had dismissed the writ petition filed in individual capacity by then Pilibhit district President of the party and had ordered that no liberty would be given to file a fresh plea on the same cause of action. In its order, the Justice Mehta-headed Bench opined that the impugned order of the Allahabad HC should not prejudice the rights of the Samajwadi Party. The SLP filed before the apex court said that the then district President did not act on behalf of the party, nor did he have any instructions from the party, but had filed the proceedings in his own name. It added that the Samajwadi Party intends to approach the Allahabad HC against "ill-conceived, abrupt and illegal decisions" of the Pilibhit Nagar Palika Parishad, but cannot do so as the impugned decision prevents it from filing a fresh plea on allotment cancellation. Since the party did not have any office in Pilibhit, as per the SLP, it was allotted the premises in question in 2020, and subsequently, a Letter of Possession was also issued by the Pilibhit Nagar Palika Parishad. However, the Executive Officer, in an order passed in 2020, recorded that due procedure was not followed in allotment of the property and several procedures were circumvented, such as a public auction was not done and the rent agreement was not registered. "The officials of Nagar Palika Parishad, Pilibhit as well as the Executive Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad, Pilibhit had neither given an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner nor have they considered the facts or the law relevant in this case, before passing the Order,' contended the SLP, adding that the party had been religiously paying the annual rent and has remitted rent payment till January 2021. It said that since allotment cancellation proceedings were not under the Public Premises Act, the order of the Executive Officer is without jurisdiction because the allotment was done by the board of Pilibhit Nagar Palika Parishad. "That acting under political pressure, the Executive Officer of the Municipal Council, Pilibhit along with his subordinates and associates, had been illegally interfering with the peaceful working of the office of the petitioner and had made innumerable attempts to forcibly shut down the Samajwadi Party office in the district," contended the SP's SLP. Senior advocate Siddarth Dave, assisted by advocates Anuroop Chakravarty and Vishnu Sankar, represented the Samajwadi Party before the apex court. pds/vd
Hans India
7 days ago
- Politics
- Hans India
Samajwadi Party approaches SC over cancellation of office allotment in Pilibhit
The Samajwadi Party has approached the Supreme Court over cancellation of its office allotment in Uttar Pradesh's Pilibhit. The special leave petition (SLP) filed before the apex court questions the validity of a decision of the Allahabad High Court which had dismissed the writ petition filed in individual capacity by then Pilibhit District President of Samajwadi Party and ordered that no liberty would be given to file a fresh plea on the same cause of action. The SLP said that the then District President did not act on behalf of the party, nor did he have any instructions from the party, but had filed the proceedings in his own name. It added that the Samajwadi Party intends to approach the Allahabad HC against "ill-conceived, abrupt and illegal decisions" of the Pilibhit Nagar Palika Parishad, but cannot do so as the impugned decision prevents it from filing a fresh plea on allotment cancellation. Since the party did not have any office in Pilibhit, as per the SLP, it was allotted the premises in question in 2020 and subsequently, a Letter of Possession was issued by the Pilibhit Nagar Palika Parishad. However, the Executive Officer, in an order passed in 2020, recorded that due procedure was not followed in allotment of the property and several procedures were circumvented, such as a public auction was not done and the rent agreement was not registered. "The officials of Nagar Palika Parishad, Pilibhit as well as the Executive Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad, Pilibhit had neither given an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner nor have they considered the facts or the law relevant in this case, before passing the Order,' contended the SLP, adding that the party had been religiously paying the annual rent and has remitted rent payment till January 2021. It said that since allotment cancellation proceedings were not under the Public Premises Act, the order of the Executive Officer is without jurisdiction because the allotment was done by the board of Pilibhit Nagar Palika Parishad. "That acting under political pressure, the Executive Officer of the Municipal Council, Pilibhit along with his subordinates and associates, had been illegally interfering with the peaceful working of the office of the petitioner and had made innumerable attempts to forcibly shut down the Samajwadi Party office in the district," the SP's SLP contended.
Hindustan Times
15-05-2025
- Hindustan Times
HC pulls up Defence ministry for forcible possession of century-old disputed property
Indore, The Madhya Pradesh High Court has criticised the Defence Ministry for its 'wholly illegal' act of forcibly taking possession of a 132-year-old disputed property from two elderly sisters without adhering to due legal procedures. In an order of May 13, the Indore Bench of the High Court presided by Justice Pranay Verma said the manner in which the defence estate officer seized the approximately 1.8-acre property situated in MHOW, Indore, 'defies all canons of law'. The order came in an appeal filed by Ann Chandiramani, 84, and Aruna Rodrigues, 79, who were challenging an April 2024 order from an appellate court that had rejected their plea for an injunction against dispossession. As per the plea, a civil court in 2022 had rejected the application seeking declaration of their title over the disputed property and also a declaration that the show cause notice for eviction issued to them by the defence estate officer was null and void. While the civil court acknowledged the sisters' failure to prove their title, it recognised their possession of the property and their right to its occupation. A day after the civil court rejected their application, the defence estate officer took possession of the property without following due process of law and without any order of eviction passed by a court or authority, the sisters alleged. The High Court's judgment took note of the "forcible possession" that occurred within a mere 24 hours of the civil court's decision. "It is evident that the defendants did not afford a breathing time of even 24 hours to the plaintiffs to approach the appellate court and seek interim order in their favour," the HC observed. The bench highlighted the long-standing nature of the property dispute, spanning nearly 30 years, and said "heavens would not have fallen" had the sisters been granted reasonable time to seek legal recourse. "The manner in which the defendants have taken possession of the disputed property is wholly illegal and defies all canons of law," the HC remarked. It is evident that the defence estate officer was "bent up and premeditated" to deprive the sisters of appealing against the trial court order, Justice Verma said. "Such an attitude on part of the defendants is most unfortunate and cannot be countenanced," HC said. The bench directed the defence estate officer to restore status quo and deliver possession of the disputed property to the sisters and thereafter not to interfere with the same or create any third-party interest. In their plea, the sisters claimed that the property was purchased by their predecessors in November 1892. In July 1995, the Defence ministry issued a notice to the sisters under the provisions of Public Premises Act, seeking documents of title of the disputed property. They were also directed to stop construction on the property and were issued a show cause notice for eviction by the Defence Estate Officer. The sisters replied to the notice and in 1997, filed a suit in the civil court.
