Uttarakhand High Court
Unknown vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 19 March, 2026
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
2026:UHC:1909
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition Misc. Single No.1213 of 2022
19th March, 2026
Virendra Singh ...........Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others .........Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Raman Kumar Shah, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. N.S. Pundir, learned D.A.G. for the State.
Mr. Yogesh Pacholia, learned counsel for respondent nos.4 and 5.
Ms. Anjali Bhargava, learned counsel and Ms. Poorvi Chaudhary,
learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Saurav Adhikari, learned
counsel for respondent no.6.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, whereby the petitioner has sought a direction in the nature of certiorari calling the report from the respondents regarding the status of installing the petrol pump in the public land and quashing the wrong permission granted to respondent nos.4 and 5.
2. In substance it is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent nos.4 and 5 installed a petrol pump over the state land comprised of Khasra No.9280 and 9281, ad-measuring 0.030 hectare of Village-Dol, P.O. Saharfarak, Jalna, Tehsil-Jainti, District Almora. He submits that the respondents should be evicted from the possession of the State land.
3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the State in which it has been clearly stated that these two plots over which the part of the petrol pump is installed is entered in the revenue records in the name of Public Works Department.
4. Learned counsel for the State further submits that on the basis of his counter affidavit that a proceeding for eviction of respondent nos.4 and 5 from the State land has 1 2026:UHC:1909 already been initiated and an Eviction Case No.1 of 2016-17, State Vs. Sundar Prakash Chaudhary and another, is pending in the court of learned Prescribed Authority-Sub Divisional Magistrate, Jainti/Bhanoli, District-Almora since 2017.
5. Learned counsel for respondent nos.4 and 5 submits that a similar issue regarding the possession/encroachment of respondent nos.4 and 5 over the land was decided by the Civil Court in favour of respondent nos.4 and 5 in Original Suit No.80 of 2013, Prakash Singh Kunjwal Vs. State and others, by learned Civil Judge (S.D.) and that decree has never been challenged by either State or any of the private parties who were defendants in the said suit.
6. Be that as it may. The grievance raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner before this Court can be redressed by directing the learned Prescribed Authority-Sub Divisional Magistrate, Jainti/Bhanoli, District-Almora to decide the aforesaid case under The Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "Act of 1971"), expeditiously.
7. In such view of the matter, writ petition is disposed of and it is directed that the Eviction Case No.1 of 2016-17, State Vs. Sundar Prakash Chaudhary and another, under Section 4/5 of Act of 1971 shall be decided by learned Prescribed Authority-Sub Divisional Magistrate, Jainti/Bhanoli, District-Almora, expeditiously within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.) 19.03.2026 SK 2