WPMS/2044/2025
2025 Latest Caselaw 871 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

WPMS/2044/2025 on 11 July, 2025

Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari

Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari

                                                                 2025:UHC:6032
              Office Notes,
             reports, orders
             or proceedings
SL.
      Date    or directions              COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
             and Registrar's
               order with
               Signatures
                               WPMS/2044/2025
                               With
                               WPMS/2046/2025
                               Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J
                               1.

Mr. Suryakant Maithani & Mr. Rishab Ranghar, Advocates for the petitioners.

2. Mr. S.K. Nainwal, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand.

3. Since common questions of fact and law are involved in both the cases, therefore, these petitions are clubbed together and are being heard & decided together. However, for the sake of brevity and convenience, facts of WPMS No. 2044 of 2025 alone are being considered.

4. In this petition, petitioners have challenged the eviction order passed by Prescribed Authority under Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972 on 07.10.2019. They have also challenged the judgment rendered by learned Additional District Judge, Pithoragarh on 17.05.2025, whereby their appeal was dismissed.

5. It is not in dispute that notice under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued to the father of the petitioners alleging that he has encroached upon Government land. Father of the petitioner, in his reply contended that he is in unauthorised occupation over public land for sufficiently long period of time, therefore, he cannot be evicted from the property in question.

6. During pendency of proceedings 2025:UHC:6032

before Prescribed Authority, father of the petitioners passed away and petitioners' were substituted in his place. Prescribed Authority passed eviction order against petitioners, which was challenged by petitioners in an appeal filed under Section 9 of the Act. The appeal, having been dismissed by Additional District Judge, petitioners have approached this Court.

7. From perusal of eviction order passed by Prescribed Authority, it is revealed that land is categorised as 9(3)(M) Krishi Yogya Banjar Bhoomi, which indicates that it was a Government Land. Thus, he submits that no one is authorised to occupy a Government land, therefore, Prescribed Authority was justified in passing the eviction order. He submits that learned Appellate Court has also considered all relevant aspects and has affirmed the eviction order.

8. This Court finds substance in the submission made by learned State Counsel. Admittedly, the land, over which petitioners' house is standing, is a Government land, therefore, eviction order cannot be faulted. Learned Additional District Judge was thus justified in dismissing the appeal. Thus, there is no scope for interference with the impugned judgments and orders.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioners then submits that petitioners belong to weaker section of the society and as per Government Policy, there is a provision for regularisation of unauthorised occupation of such person. He submits that petitioners are landless labourer, without any other property and the only dwelling house of the petitioners would 2025:UHC:6032

be demolished, if the possession is not regularised.

10. Learned State Counsel submits that petitioners can apply for regularisation of their unauthorised possession, if there is any provision of such regularisation.

11. The writ petitions are, accordingly disposed of with liberty to petitioners to make application(s) to the Competent Authority for regularising their unauthorised possession of the land in question. If petitioners make such application(s) within three weeks from today, the Competent Authority shall take decision thereupon within nine months thereafter. For a period of ten months or till decision is taken on petitioners' application, whichever is earlier, petitioners shall not be dispossessed from the land in question.

(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J) 11.07.2025 Aswal NITI RAJ Digitally signed by NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,

SINGH 2.5.4.20=eacc6757ee7881e933ff8934f07477005aa85f 9802a3a08b08d1369512ea30f3, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=44EB54CBF00B7698CB6F10C2CE3D26F

ASWAL 5C22DACF4F4610C1FE58A58531726FBB0, cn=NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL Date: 2025.07.11 06:14:42 -07'00' 2025:UHC:6032