HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 42233 of 2013 Court No. - 40 HON'BLE SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J. HON'BLE AMITABH KUMAR RAI, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sandeep Kumar Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. The petitioner by means of present writ petition has assailed the notice of demolition and eviction of the petitioner dated 04.07.2013 issued by the respondent no.3-Additional Chief Officer, Zila Panchayat, Saharanpur. 3. This Court on 12.08.2013 passed the following order: "Learned standing counsel has accepted notice on behalf of respondent no.1, Sri V.K. Dixit has appeared for respondent no.2 and 3. Time was granted to Sri Dixit to obtain instruction, but the same has not been received. He prays for and is allowed 10 days time to file counter affidavit. 10 days thereafter for filing rejoinder affidavit. List immediately thereafter. The case of the petitioner is that under the registered agreement, petitioner was given the property in question on rent. In clause IV of the said agreement, it was provided that on completion of 9 years an increase of 25% rent may be made. A period of 9 years had expired on 12-4-2013. Petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 4-7-2013 whereby it is stated that the petitioner has raised certain permanent construction in violation of agreement and has also not paid upto date rent. Zila Panchayat has thus directed the petitioner to remove the construction and give vacant possession of the plot in question. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Vikrant Pandey Counsel for Respondent(s) : Shitla Prasad, V.K.Dixit Shrawan Kumar Gupta .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru Secy. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) Submission of learned counsel for petitioner is that the entire rent has been paid as has been categorically stated in para 23 of the writ petition. It is further stated that the petitioner was permitted by Upper Mukhya Adhikari, Zila Panchayat, Saharanpur on 19-4-2004 to raise temporary construction and in case there was any violation, it should have been specified by giving a notice and passing of the impugned order in the manner as has been done, is wholly unjustified. Sri Dixit, learned counsel for the respondent also could not place before us any document to show that any notice specifying alleged illegal constructions was ever given to the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid, as an interim measures, operation of the impugned order dated 4-7-2013 passed by the Upper Mukhya Adhikari, Zila Panchayat, Saharanpur, respondent no.3 shall remain stayed." 4. Petitioner in the writ petition has assailed the notice on the ground that the petitioner has not violated the terms and conditions of the agreement. In this respect, the petitioner has made specific averment in paragraph nos. 25 to 28 of the writ petition which are reproduced herein below:- "25. That, the notice dated 04.07.2013 passed by the respondent no.3 impugned in the present writ petition is passed without considering the fact that from the bare perusal of the agreement of petitioner with the respondent no.3 dated 13.04.2004 no specific time period was given by the respondent no.3 as stated by him in the impugned notice. 26. That the notice dated 04.07.2013 passed by the respondent no.3 impugned in the present writ petition has been passed without considering the fact that the land in question was given on rent to the petitioner and the only condition about the time period between the parties in the Clause-4 of aforesaid agreement was that after 9 years an increase of 25% in rent will be done. 27. That the notice dated 04.07.2013 passed by the respondent no.3 impugned in the present writ petition has been passed without considering the fact that in the Clause 5 and 6 the petitioner was permitted to raise permanent construction over the land in question subject to the condition that any such construction raised by the petitioner will be a property of respondent no.2. 28. That the notice dated 04.07.2013 passed by the respondent no.3 impugned in the present writ petition has been passed without considering the fact that petitioner has not violated any of the condition of the agreement between the parties executed on 13.04.2004 and therefore the notice dated 04.07.2013 is illegal on its fact." 5. We find that the impugned order is silent and does not state the reason as to which condition of the agreement has been violated. The impugned order WRIC No. 42233 of 2013 2 also refers to an order dated 22.06.2013, by which the tenancy of the petitioner has been terminated but the counter affidavit filed by the Zila Panchayat does not state that any such order was passed which has not been challenged by the petitioner. 6. In such view of the fact, we dispose off the writ petition permitting the petitioner to file a detailed representation against the notice dated 04.07.2013 ventilating all his grievances within a period of one month from today. On submitting such representation, the respondent no.2-Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Saharanpur shall consider and decide the same expeditiously preferably within a period of one month thereafter, after giving the notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 7. For the period of two months or till the disposal of the representation by respondent no.2, whichever is earlier, the interim order granted by this Court dated 12.08.2013 shall continue. September 23, 2025 Mohit WRIC No. 42233 of 2013 3 (Amitabh Kumar Rai,J.) (Saral Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHIT KUMAR KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad