JAI DUTT vs STATE OF U.P. & ORS.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the appellant, who claimed hereditary tenancy under Section 180(2) of the U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939, had no lawful title to the land as he occupied it without consent from the owner. The Court held that the land was public land under the U.P. Land (Eviction and Recovery of Rent and Damages) Act, 1959, and that the obligation to refer the matter to a Civil Judge under Section 7 was not mandatory. Additionally, the appellant's failure to raise certain legal objections in lower courts precluded his claims regarding the notice under Section 3 of the Eviction Act.