WPMS/2362/2022
2022 Latest Caselaw 3132 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. 2362 of 2022
                                  Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.

Mr. Devang Dobhal, Advocate for the petitioner.

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

Heard learned counsel for the parties. Eviction proceedings were initiated against petitioner under provisions of U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972 by issuing a notice under Section 4(1) of the Act. The said notice was duly served upon petitioner, and petitioner did file a reply, however, he did not participate in the proceedings before Prescribed Authority after filing his reply. Learned Prescribed Authority ordered for petitioner's eviction from the land in question by holding that he is in unauthorised occupation of public premises.

Petitioner filed an Appeal under Section 9 of the said Act, which too has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Tehri Garhwal vide judgment dated 02.05.2022.

In this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the order passed by Prescribed Authority and also the Appellate Authority.

From perusal of the judgment rendered by learned Prescribed Authority, it is apparent that the only defence taken by petitioner was that his land was acquired for construction of Tehri Dam and thereafter, he was allotted the land in question by the Gram Pradhan, however, he could not produce any evidence in support of his contention that he was allotted the said land by Gram Pradhan or any Competent Authority. Thus, learned Prescribed Authority disbelieved the stand taken by petitioner. Perusal of the judgment further reveals that petitioner had constructed a house over the land allotted to him by Gram Pradhan in the year 1972.

Learned Prescribed Authority has dealt with the said defence and held that since petitioner does not have title over the land in question, therefore, he cannot claim any right, merely on the basis of long possession.

Learned Appellate Authority has affirmed the order passed by Prescribed Authority.

This Court does not find any reason to interfere with the judgment and order passed by learned Prescribed Authority as well as Appellate Authority.

Learned counsel for petitioner then submits that petitioner belongs to weaker section of society, and there is a Government Policy, which provides for regularisation of unauthorized occupation by persons belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Reference has been made to Government Order issued by State of U.P. on 14.09.1995.

Without expressing any opinion on petitioner's claim for regularisation, writ petition is disposed of by permitting petitioner to apply for regularisation of his unauthorised occupation. If it is permissible in any Government Policy, he may make such application, within two weeks from today. If such application is made within the stipulated time, decision thereupon shall be taken, within three months thereafter.

For a period of four months or till decision on petitioner's application, whichever is earlier, petitioner shall not be dispossessed from the land in question.

(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 24.09.2022 Navin