WPMS/1673/2022
2022 Latest Caselaw 2185 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.1673 of 2022
                                  Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.

Mr. Abhishek Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Mr. R.C. Arya, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand.

By means of this writ petition, petitioner has challenged judgment & order dated 30.01.2019 passed by Prescribed Authority / Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kotdwar, District Pauri Garhwal and judgment & order dated 07.01.2022 passed by Additional District Judge, Kotdwar, District Pauri Garhwal in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 10 of 2019.

It is not in dispute that notice under Section 4(1) of U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972 was issued to the petitioner, which was duly served upon him. However, petitioner did not participate in the proceeding initiated pursuant to the said notice which led to passing of impugned eviction order against the petitioner on 30.01.2019.

Petitioner challenged the said judgment passed by Prescribed Authority by filing an appeal under Section 9 of the aforesaid Act. His appeal has also been dismissed vide judgment dated 07.01.2022.

Thus, feeling aggrieved, petitioner has filed this writ petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner was paying licence fee in respect of kiosk in question to the Irrigation Department, therefore, he cannot be treated as unauthorised occupant. He refers to a document enclosed as Annexure - 1 to the writ petition, which is a receipt issued by Ziledar, Kotdwar.

Perusal of the said document reveals that petitioner paid ₹1,579/- for the Financial Years 1991-92 to 1996-97. However, the said document does not indicate the purpose for which the amount was paid. Learned Appellate Court considered and discussed petitioner's contention based on the said receipt in para 6 of the judgment, however, it was held that no licence fee was paid by petitioner after 01.04.1998. Since there is nothing on record to show that petitioner was having a valid licence after 01.04.1998, the finding recorded by learned courts below cannot be faulted.

Property in question belongs to Irrigation Department and comes within the definition of 'Public Premises', under Section 2 (e) of U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972 and petitioner was found in occupation of public premises without any authority of law, therefore, judgments and orders passed by courts below cannot be interfered with.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner's family is below poverty line and there is no other source of income available to petitioner, except the kiosk in question from which he is running a tea stall, therefore, a sympathetic view be taken in respect of petitioner.

Having regard to the said submission, writ petition is disposed of with liberty to petitioner to make representation to District Magistrate, Pauri Garhwal for allotting a small piece of land, so that he may run his business. If petitioner makes such representation within two weeks, District Magistrate shall call a report from the concerned Revenue Authorities, regarding petitioner's financial status and if it is found that petitioner is living below poverty line, then his representation shall be considered sympathetically, as per law, within six weeks from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order. For a period of eight weeks, petitioner shall not be dispossessed from the kiosk in question.

(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 20.07.2022 Aswal