WPMS/1885/2022
2022 Latest Caselaw 2832 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. 1885 of 2022
                                  Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.

Mr. Mohan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner.

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

Petitioner has challenged the order dated 24.04.2018 passed by Prescribed Authority under Section 5 of U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised) Act, 1972. He has also challenged the judgment dated 06.10.2021 rendered by learned Appellate Authority.

It transpires that a notice under Section 4 (1) of the aforesaid Act was issued to the petitioner on 06.09.2008, however, petitioner did not respond to the said notice, therefore, learned Prescribed Authority passed an order on 22.10.2009 for proceeding ex-parte in the matter. The said order was subsequently recalled on petitioner's application. Petitioner thereafter filed his reply to the said notice. In his reply, he refuted the allegation that he has encroached upon Government land.

The Revenue Inspector, was examined as witness who stated in his deposition that petitioner has occupied about 90 Sq. Metre land comprised in Khasra No. 386, recorded in the revenue record in the name of Nagar Palika. He further stated that the said land belongs to the State Government. Petitioner in his deposition admitted that he has covered the land in question by fencing and he also admitted that it is Government land.

Learned Prescribed Authority ordered for petitioner's eviction vide order dated 24.04.2018. Petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 9 of the said Act, which has been dismissed by learned District Judge vide order dated 06.01.2021.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that since the land in question is within municipal limits, therefore, provisions of U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised) Act, 1972 have no application and provisions of U.P. Municipalities Act alone would application to the land in question.

The said submission made on behalf of petitioner is fallacious. Section 2(e) of U.P. Public Premises Act provides that any premises belonging to or taken on lease or requisitioned by or on behalf of any local authority is also public premises.

It is not in dispute that Nagar Palika is a Local Authority, therefore, land belonging to the Nagar Palika also comes within the meaning of 'Public Premises' as defined under Section 2(e) (ii) of the aforesaid Act.

Even otherwise also, learned Prescribed Authority as well as learned District Judge have recorded categorical finding that land belongs to the State Government, although it may be managed by the Nagar Palika.

I have gone through the judgment and orders passed by learned courts below. Learned courts have dealt with the matter in great detail, and the contentions raised by petitioner have also been considered while deciding the matter. Petitioner himself admitted that the land belongs to State Government, therefore, learned Prescribed Authority was justified in ordering petitioner's eviction, therefrom.

Thus, there is no scope for interference in the matter.

Accordingly, writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.

(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 07.09.2022 Aswal