HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 9196 of 2023 Court No. - 9 HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR NIGAM, J. 1. This petition has been filed challenging the order dated 17.09.2021 passed by the prescribed authority under Section 4 of the U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972 directing for eviction of the petitioner and imposing damages of Rs. 34,84,800/-. Against the order dated 17.09.2021, the petitioner preferred an appeal and the appeal has also been dismissed by order dated 19.05.2023. 2. Apart from merits, contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the proceedings were decided during COVID period without providing any opportunity to the petitioner to lead evidence in support of his case and as such the orders passed by the prescribed authority are in violation to the principles of natural justice. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited attention of the Court to the order sheet annexed along with the supplementary affidavit. From the order sheet, it is apparent by order dated 03.02.2021, the matter was adjourned as the Presiding Officer was on leave and 20.02.2021 was fixed as the next date for the cross examination of the plaintiff-witness. It has been further submitted by counsel for the petitioner that because of COVID situation, the matter was taken up only on 15.09.2021. The petitioner had no knowledge of the date as the COVID pandemic was continuing. On 15.09.2021, the right to cross examine the plaintiff-witness of the petitioner was closed on the ground that the petitioner has not appeared for a long time in the matter and the case was directed to be put up on 17.09.2021. The petitioner again had no knowledge that 17.09.2021 was the date fixed. On 17.09.2021, Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Amrendra Nath Rai, Hem Pratap Singh, Sanjay Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. K. C. Pant .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) judgment was reserved and the order impugned was passed after lunch. After closing the right of cross examination, no time was granted to the petitioner to examine his witnesses or to produce evidence on his behalf. No notice of the date i.e. 17.9.2021 was given to the petitioner. Petitioner had no knowledge of the date fixed as he was absent on 15.09.2021, which was the date fixed after about seven months. It has also been contended by counsel for the petitioner that no opportunity was given to the petitioner to lead evidence in support of his case as on 15.09.2021, the right of cross examination of the petitioner was closed and on 17.09.2021, the judgment has been delivered. 3. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel has submitted that the case is pending since 2011 and despite several opportunities being granted to the petitioner, he has not availed the same and therefore, the court below has rightly passed the order but could not deny the fact that during 2021, COVID pandemic was there in India. 4. It has also been contended by counsel for the petitioner that in appeal, the petitioner has taken a ground that order has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice during COVID period. It has also been submitted by counsel for the petitioner that in appeal, petitioner moved an application before the appellate court to get the land surveyed to ascertain as to who are in possession over the land in dispute but the said application has been rejected by the court and by the order impugned, the appellate court has affirmed the order passed by the prescribed authority. 5. After considering the arguments of the respective counsel and from the perusal of the record, I am of the considered opinion that this order passed by prescribed authority is in violation of principles of natural justice as the proceedings were decided during COVID period without providing any opportunity to the petitioner. The appellate court has also overlooked the aforesaid circumstances and has confirmed the order. 6. Consequently, both the orders dated 17.09.2021 and 19.05.2023 are set aside and the writ petition is allowed and the matter is remanded to the prescribed authority to decide the same in accordance with law after providing opportunity of hearing as well as leading evidence to all the A227 No. 9196 of 2023 2 parties. 7. It has also been submitted by counsel for the petitioner that Rs. 15,00,000/- (Fifteen Lacs Only) were deposited by petitioner during pendency of appeal as a condition for grant of interim relief and since the writ petition is allowed, the deposited money may be refunded to the petitioner. 8. Since, this Court has allowed the writ petition and set aside the orders passed by the court below, it is directed that the money deposited be refunded to the petitioner within six weeks from today, on an application being made in this regard by the petitioner. September 11, 2025 Nitika Sri. A227 No. 9196 of 2023 3 (Manish Kumar Nigam,J.) Digitally signed by :- NITIKA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad