Uttarakhand High Court
WPMS/2012/2022 on 31 August, 2022
Office Notes,
reports, orders
SL. or proceedings
Date COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No or directions and
Registrar's order
with Signatures
WPMS 2012/2022
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
Mr. Ravi Babulkar, Advocate, for the
petitioner.
Mr. Yogesh Tiwari, Standing
Counsel, for the State/respondents.
Petitioner has challenged the
eviction order dated 28.4.2018 passed by
the Prescribed Authority under Section 5(1)
of the U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of
Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1972. He has
also challenged the order dated 8.8.2022
passed by the District Judge, Pauri Garhwal
in appeal.
Order passed by the Prescribed
Authority is on record as Annexure-14 to
the writ petition. In reply to the notice,
issued under Section 4(1) of the U.P. Public
Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized
Occupants) Act, 1972, petitioner contended
that his mother had raised permanent
structure over the land, in question, out of
her own funds and petitioner's family is
residing in the said structure since more
than 48 years and proceedings for
regularisation of possession of petitioner's
mother were initiated by the revenue
authorities. Therefore, petitioner cannot be
held to be an unauthorised occupant over
the said land.
However, Dr. Surendra Singh
Chauhan, Chief Medical Superintendent,
Joint Hospital, Srinagar, in his deposition
has stated that petitioner's mother was
employed as Safai Karamchari in the
hospital and she was permitted to use the
house, in question, for residential purpose
during her employment; petitioner's mother
retired on 28.2.2009 but she did not vacate
the house and, presently, petitioner is
residing in the said house unauthorisedly.
Mr. Gopal Singh Kotnala, in his
deposition, has stated that on an
application made by the Chief Medical
Superintendent, he had inspected the land
in question in January 2006, when he was
posted as Patwari in Patti Katulsyun, and
found that the said land is government
land, managed by the Nagar Palika
Parishad, Srinagar, over which petitioner
had constructed a house. However, during
inspection petitioner could not produce any
authority letter/permission for raising such
construction.
Thus, from the material on record, it
is revealed that petitioner's mother, who
was employed as Safai Karamchari, was
granted permission to live in the house, in
question, during her employment and after
her retirement, the permission granted to
her stood withdrawn.
The Appellate Authority has also
dealt with the matter in great detail and
held that after retirement of petitioner's
mother, petitioner has no authority to
continue in possession of the land, in
question.
It is well settled that possession,
howsoever long, over any government
property does not confer any right to a
person. Admittedly, property, in question,
belongs to the State Government.
Therefore, this Court does not find any
reason to interfere with the judgments and
orders passed by the Prescribed Authority
and the learned District Judge.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner
then submits that in the year 2018, SDM,
Srinagar had recommended petitioner's
case for freehold of the land, in question, to
the competent authority. He further
submits that recently another letter has
been sent by the SDM to the Collector,
Pauri, wherein SDM has stated that
petitioner's request for freehold of the land
can be considered.
In such view of the matter, while
refusing to interfere with the impugned
judgments and orders, writ petition is
disposed of with a direction to the Collector,
Pauri to take decision on petitioner's
application for freehold of the land, in
question, within two months from the date
a certified copy of this order is produced
before him.
For a period of two months,
petitioner shall not be evicted from the
land, in question.
Certified copy of this order be
supplied to learned Counsel, within 48
hours, on payment of prescribed charges.
(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
31.8.2022
Pr
