Uttarakhand High Court
WPMS/1352/2025 on 26 June, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
2025:UHC:5455
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
and Registrar's
order with
Signatures
WPMS/1352/2025
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J
1. Mr. Yogesh Chandra Tewari, learned
Standing Counsel for the State of
Uttarakhand/petitioner.
2. Mr. Pawan Kumar Nath, learned
counsel for the respondent.
3. Proceedings under UP Public
Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised
Occupants) Act, 1972 were initiated
against the respondent, which resulted in
passing of eviction order. Respondent
filed an appeal under Section 9 of the
said Act, which was allowed by learned
Additional District Judge, Karanprayag,
District Chamoli vide judgment dated
04.08.2023. By the said order, eviction
order, passed by Prescribed Authority,
was set aside and the matter was
remitted back to Prescribed Authority for
decision afresh.
4. State has challenged judgment
rendered by Appellate Authority mainly
on the ground that since Appellate Court
held that respondent is unauthorised
occupant over public land, therefore,
there was nothing left to be decided by
the Prescribed Authority and the appeal
was liable to be dismissed. It is further
submitted that father of respondent
moved an application for grant of lease in
respect of land in question, which was
rejected by the Competent Authority on
10.06.1997, therefore, the direction to
the District Magistrate to take decision
on the application, for grant of lease, is
unwarranted.
2025:UHC:5455
5. Per contra, Mr. Pavan Kumar Nath,
learned counsel appearing for the
respondent submits that the notice
issued to respondent was vague, as
particulars of the land found to be in
unauthorised occupation of respondent
were not given. He submits that
Prescribed Authority was not justified in
passing the eviction order. He, however,
concedes that the Appellate Authority
has returned a finding that respondent is
in unauthorised occupation over public
land. He further submits that respondent
belongs to weaker section of the society
and he is a landless labourer, therefore,
he is entitled to allotment of land, as per
Government Policy.
6. Learned State Counsel submits that
if petitioner is entitled for allotment of
land as per Government Policy, as
alleged by counsel for the respondent,
then respondent can make an application
to the Competent Authority.
7. After hearing learned counsel for
the parties, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the impugned
judgment rendered by Appellate Court is
not sustainable, as after recording a
finding that respondent is unauthorised
occupant over Government land; the
remand of matter to the Prescribed
Authority was not warranted.
8. The writ petition is, therefore,
allowed. The impugned judgment dated
04.08.2023 rendered by Additional
District Judge, Karanprayag is set aside.
Respondent, however, shall be at liberty
to move an application for regularisation
of his unauthorised occupation over the
land in question as per Government
2025:UHC:5455
Policy to the Competent Authority, within
three weeks from today. If respondent
makes such application within stipulated
time, the Competent Authority/District
Magistrate, Chamoli shall examine his
claim as per law and pass order, within
six months thereafter. For a period of
seven months or till decision is taken on
respondent's application, whichever is
earlier, respondent shall not be
dispossessed from the land in question.
(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J)
26.06.2025
Aswal
NITI RAJ
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF
2.5.4.20=eacc6757ee7881e933ff8934f07477005aa85f9802a3a08b0
SINGH ASWAL
8d1369512ea30f3, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=44EB54CBF00B7698CB6F10C2CE3D26F5C22DACF4F
4610C1FE58A58531726FBB0, cn=NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL
Date: 2025.06.26 07:48:06 -07'00'
