WPMS/49/2022
2022 Latest Caselaw 95 UK

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
                      AT NAINITAL
       ON THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022
                             BEFORE:
     HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI

         Writ Petition (M/S) No. 49 of 2022
BETWEEN:
Harish Lal                                                    ...Petitioner
      (By Mr. Shivanand Bhatt, Advocate)

AND:

State of Uttarakhand and others                        ...Respondents
      (By Mr. Suyash Pant, Standing Counsel for the State)


                           JUDGMENT

Heard learned counsel for the parties through Video Conferencing.

2. Petitioner is challenging the notice issued by Executive Engineer, Establishment (Rehabilitation) Division, New Tehri, on 31.12.2021.

3. By the said notice, petitioner has been asked to remove his unauthorized occupation from the land in question within two days or else face legal action. It is further stated in the notice that the expenses incurred in removing petitioner's encroachment shall be recoverable from him.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier on 16.08.2013, Prescribed Authority Regulated Area, New Tehri passed an order for demolition of the structure raised by

petitioner over the land in question and petitioner challenged the said demolition order by filing Appeal before Divisional Commissioner under provisions of U.P. (Regulation of Building Operations) Act, 1958. He further submits that an interim order was passed on 31.08.2013 in the said appeal staying operation of the demolition order. According to him, the interim order is still operating and the appeal is yet to be decided.

5. By means of this writ petition, petitioner has sought the following reliefs:-

"a) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Ceritorari quashing the impugned notice dated 31.12.2021 (Annexure-6) issued by respondent no.3.

b) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing and commanding the respondents not to make any coercive measures against the petitioner pursuant to impugned notice dated 31.12.2021 (Annexure-6) issued by respondent no.3."

6. This Court does not find any reason to interfere with a notice, whereby petitioner has been asked to remove his encroachment from public land. No one can claim adverse possession in respect of public land.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was denied opportunity of hearing in the matter. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of by providing as follows:-

Petitioner shall be at liberty to submit reply to the notice dated 31.12.2021 (impugned herein) within ten days from

today. If petitioner submits his reply and also produces copy of the order of extension of the interim order passed in petitioner's appeal under U.P. (Regulation of Building Operations) Act, 1958 within three weeks from today, the Competent Authority shall look into the matter and take appropriate decision, within four weeks thereafter. For a period of eight weeks or till decision is taken in the matter, whichever is earlier, status- quo, shall be maintained, qua the land in question.

In case of failure on the part of petitioner in submitting reply and producing copy of order of extension of the interim order, within stipulated time, he shall not be entitled to any protection of this order and authorities shall be free to proceed in the matter, as per law.

(MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J.) Shubham