LUCKNOW BENCH of the high court dismissed petitions of eight odd tenants of Raja Mahmudabad here on Tuesday, after a detailed argument, stamping the eviction of tenants as per judgment of the Supreme Court on October 25, 2005.
Before dismissing the petitions, the court observed: “Once this court has come to the conclusion that it will not have any jurisdiction or authority to interpret the orders passed by the apex court or the directive issued by the apex court, no such order can be passed by this court…all tenants have to be evicted unless recognised by the Raja, the discretion lies with him either to take physical possession during the period interregnum or not, but this court would not issue any directive in this regard.”
The bench, comprising Justice Pradeep Kant and Justice BB Agrawal, dismissed petitions filed by Vikram Kapoor and seven others. District magistrate Lucknow submitted before the bench that the apex court, during the course of the hearing of this matter had observed that physical handing over of the properties of the Raja had to be done by evicting all the tenants. It was submitted further that the apex court had observed that the tenants had to be evicted unless recognised by Mohd Amir Mohd Khan, The Raja Mehmoodabad.
Prashant Chandra, appearing for the tenants/Petitioners, submitted before the court that the observations made by the apex court for evicting the tenants forcibly could not be taken to mean that the court directed for eviction
of the petitioners and other like tenants forcibly and it appeared to be meant only for such tenants who were inducted by the custodian of the Government.
Mohammad Arif Khan, appearing for the Raja, submitted before the court that if the petitioners felt that the judgment of the apex court did not cover them or they were not liable to eviction under the orders of the Supreme Court, the only remedy they could avail of was to approach the Supreme Court and the high court had no jurisdiction to look into the matter and give its own findings. He further said it was not a case of interpretation of the judgment of the apex court but a case of following the directive issued by the court, therefore, the order passed by the apex court was binding and it was not open to scrutiny, nor the directive issued could be interpreted otherwise.