WPMS/1951/2022
2022 Latest Caselaw 2575 UK

                Office Notes,
             reports, orders or
SL.           proceedings or
      Date                                       COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No             directions and
             Registrar's order
              with Signatures
                                  WPMS No.1951 of 2022
                                  Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.

Mr. Mehboob Rahi and Mr. Abhishek Verma, Advocates for the petitioner.

Mr. Yogesh Chandra Tiwari, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand.

Heard learned counsel for the parties. A notice under Section 4 (1) of U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1972 was issued against the petitioner, alleging that he is unauthorizedly occupying property belonging to the Irrigation Department. Despite service of such notice, petitioner did not submit any reply before the Prescribed Authority, therefore, the Prescribed Authority ordered for eviction of petitioner from the said property. Petitioner thereafter filed an Appeal before the District Judge, however, he could not produce any document to show that he was having any authority to occupy public property, therefore, his Appeal was dismissed by District Judge, Pauri Garhwal vide judgment dated 01.12.2021. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment & order passed by learned District Judge as well as Prescribed Authority, petitioner has approached this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Petitioner has enclosed two receipts alleged to have been issued by Zila Panchayat, Pauri Garhwal in his favour, which are on record as Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition. The first receipt is dated 06.07.2005 and the second receipt is dated 21.08.2005. These receipts indicate that a sum of ` 990/- and ` 1100/- was paid to Zila Panchayat, however the purpose for which such amount was paid is not clear from the receipts.

Learned Standing Counsel points out that, in the cause title, name of petitioner's father is mentioned as 'Ram Chandra'; while, the name of the petitioner mentioned in the receipts is 'Ramcharan'. Thus, according to learned Standing Counsel, petitioner cannot get benefit out of the said receipts. He further submits that these receipts were not filed before the Prescribed Authority or Appellate Authority. Thus, according to him, this Court, while exercising supervisory jurisdiction, will not consider any new evidence which was not brought before the learned Courts below.

Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that the property, from which petitioner has been ordered to be evicted, is government property, thus it is 'public premises' within the term as defined in U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1972.

The only contention thus raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner was paying license fee. In the absence of any evidence on record, the said contention made on behalf of petitioner cannot be accepted.

In such view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the orders impugned in this writ petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner is a person living below poverty line and he was earning his livelihood by running a Tea Stall over the land in question. Thus, he submits that if petitioner is evicted from the said land, then he will be deprived of his only source of livelihood. He further submits that there is a Government Policy which provides for allotment of small piece of land to persons belonging to weaker section of society, therefore, petitioner may be permitted to make representation to District Magistrate in terms of said Government Policy.

Learned Standing Counsel has no objection, if such direction is issued.

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of by permitting the petitioner to make representation to District Magistrate, Pauri Garhwal, within three weeks from today. If petitioner makes such representation within the stipulated period, decision thereupon shall be taken, in terms of Government Policy, within a period of eight weeks' from the date of receipt of representation, alongwith certified copy of this order.

It is made clear that, before taking any decision, District Magistrate shall make enquiry regarding petitioner's eligibility for allotment of land in terms of Government Policy, especially his financial status.

For a period of eight weeks, petitioner shall not be evicted from the land in question.

(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 22.08.2022 Arpan