Uttarakhand High Court
WPMS/448/2012 on 24 August, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
ON THE 24TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2021
BEFORE:
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 448 of 2012
BETWEEN:
Vijendra Singh. .....Petitioner
(By Mr. Alok Kumar, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Sandeep Kothari,
Advocate)
AND:
State of Uttarakhand & another. ...Respondents
(By Mr. R.C. Arya, Standing Counsel with Mr. R.C. Joshi, Brief Holder
for the State of Uttarakhand/respondents)
JUDGMENT
By means of this petition filed under
Article 227, petitioner is challenging the eviction
order dated 22.03.2010 passed by Prescribed
Authority under U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of
Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1972, as affirmed in
appeal by learned Additional District Judge, Tehri
Garhwal, vide judgment dated 14.02.2012.
2. A notice under Section 4(1) of the
aforesaid Act was issued to the petitioner, alleging
that he is unauthorizedly occupying 0.004 hectare
land, comprised in Khasra No. 490, which belongs
to the State Government. It was further alleged in
the said notice that petitioner has constructed a
shop and has also planted fruit bearing trees over
the said land, from which he is having income of
about ` 60,000/- per annum.
3. Petitioner submitted his reply to the said
notice, inter alia, contending that the U.P. Public
Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants)
Act, 1972 is now not applicable in Uttarakhand.
He further contended that the shop in question is
existing over the said land since long and it does
not amount to 'unauthorized occupation'.
4. Learned Prescribed Authority ordered for
petitioner's eviction from the land in question, vide
order dated 22.03.2010. Petitioner, thereafter,
preferred an appeal under Section 9 of the said
Act, which has been dismissed by learned
Additional District Judge, Tehri Garhwal vide
judgment dated 14.02.2012. The order passed by
Prescribed Authority and the judgment rendered
by Appellate Authority have been put to challenge
in this writ petition.
5. Learned Prescribed Authority has dealt
with the matter in great detail. Before the
Prescribed Authority, petitioner contended that he
is occupying the land in question since last 30-35
years and he considered the said land to be his
own. Said contention of the petitioner clearly
indicates that he did not claim ownership of the
land in question and he merely asserted his
possession. Learned Prescribed Authority has
rightly held that unauthorized occupation over
Government land, for any length of time, will not
create any title in favour of the occupier.
6. The question, whether U.P. Public
Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants)
Act, 1972, is applicable in Uttarakhand or not, has
been answered in the affirmative by Coordinate
Bench of this Court vide judgment dated
25.02.2013 rendered in WPMS No. 1257 of 2011.
It was held in the said judgment that the said Act
was adapted by Uttarakhand Government under
Section 87 of the U.P. Reorganization Act, 2000,
therefore, U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of
Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1972 is applicable in
Uttarakhand.
7. Petitioner never asserted his title over
the land in question and, on the other hand, he
admitted that he is simply in occupation of the
said land, without indicating the authority under
which he was occupying the land. In such view of
the matter, this Court does not find any reason to
interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by
learned Courts below.
8. Accordingly, writ petition fails and is
dismissed.
9. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
(MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J.)
Navin
