Uttarakhand High Court
A. K. Jain vs District Magistrate on 2 June, 2025
2025:UHC:4654
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
WRIT PETITION (M/S) NO. 2607 of 2017
A. K. Jain ......Petitioner
Versus
District Magistrate, Champawat and another .....Respondents
Presence:
Mr. Kishore Rai, learned counsel for the Petitioner.
Mr. Ganga Singh Negi, C.S.C, for the State of Uttarakhand.
Hon'ble Ashish Naithani, J.
1. The present writ petition is filed by the petitioner A.K. Jain, son of Shri
Shankar Lal Jain, resident of Village Jaul, Tehsil Purnagiri, District
Champawat, challenging the orders dated 07.05.2016 passed by the
Learned Prescribed Authority/Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Purnagiri,
Tanakpur in Eviction Case No. 02 of 2007-08, and order dated
14.06.2017 passed by the Learned District Judge, Champawat in
Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 07 of 2016, under Sections 4 and 5 of
the U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act,
1972.
2. The petitioner has sought a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned
orders directing his eviction from land allegedly situated in Khasra No.
2377, Village Jaul. The petitioner is stated to be in possession of the said
land pursuant to a registered sale deed dated 07.09.2006. He was
1
Writ Petition No. 2607 of 2017 (M/S)-----A. K. Jain vs District Magistrate, Champawat and another
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:4654
allegedly taken into custody for eviction proceedings based on a
mistaken identity of the land, leading to the present proceedings.
3. The factual background reveals that the petitioner purchased land
measuring one Nali situated in Khasra No. 2319, Khata No. 59, in Village
Jaul from its previous owner Aan Singh, son of Dungar Singh, through a
registered sale deed dated 07.09.2006. The revenue records and Patwari
reports prior to the sale indicated that the said land was not government
property but rather belonged to Aan Singh and fell in category 4.
4. The land was bounded on the east by a pedestrian road, on the west by
the property of Rajesh Chhabra, on the north by Shyamalatal Road, and
on the south by land owned by the State Government.
5. It appears that eviction proceedings were initiated against the petitioner
with respect to 03 Nali land situated in Khasra No. 2377, which is
admittedly public land recorded as Panchayat Forest in category 9(3)(A).
On 07.05.2016, the Prescribed Authority directed the eviction of the
petitioner under the assumption that he had encroached upon Khasra No.
2377.
6. The petitioner contested this order, asserting that he has no possession in
Khasra No. 2377 and had explicitly stated so during proceedings before
the authority. The impugned order was passed, and the subsequent appeal
was dismissed on 14.06.2017, which failed to examine in depth the
evidence pertaining to ownership and identity of land.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
2
Writ Petition No. 2607 of 2017 (M/S)-----A. K. Jain vs District Magistrate, Champawat and another
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:4654
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire proceedings
culminating in the impugned orders are founded on a factual
misapprehension and a gross error in identifying the land in question.
9. It is vehemently argued that the petitioner is the rightful owner and in
possession of one Nali land situated in Khasra No. 2319, which he
acquired through a registered sale deed dated 07.09.2006 from Aan
Singh, son of Dungar Singh. The said transaction is duly reflected in the
revenue records and supported by the Patwari's earlier report dated
02.09.2005, which categorically states that the land was privately owned
and not government land.
10.It is further submitted that the petitioner is not, and has never been, in
possession of Khasra No. 2377, which is recorded as public land
categorized under Panchayat Forest. The boundaries of the petitioner's
land, as shown in the registered sale deed and the earlier injunction
decree passed on 07.10.2013 by the Civil Judge (Junior Division),
Tanakpur, also confirm that the disputed land lies in Khasra No. 2319.
11.The petitioner asserts that during proceedings before the Prescribed
Authority, he made it abundantly clear that he had no objection if he was
evicted from Khasra No. 2377, as he never had any possession over that
land. Despite this categorical admission, the authority erroneously
proceeded to evict him by wrongly presuming encroachment.
12.It is argued that there was neither proper demarcation nor any credible
evidence to establish that the land under the petitioner's occupation was
in fact Khasra No. 2377. Furthermore, the measurement methods
employed by the officials were vague, lacking clear metric indicators or
boundary identification. The impugned orders are, therefore, assailed as
3
Writ Petition No. 2607 of 2017 (M/S)-----A. K. Jain vs District Magistrate, Champawat and another
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:4654
being passed without proper appreciation of the material on record and in
breach of natural justice.
13.Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, supports the impugned
orders and contends that the petitioner had encroached upon 03 Nali of
government land situated in Khasra No. 2377, which falls under
Panchayat Forest (Category 9(3)A).
14.It was further submitted that on the basis of a challan report dated
05.09.2007 and the supporting testimony of the Patwari, the Prescribed
Authority rightly found unauthorized occupation by the petitioner. A spot
map and revenue records supported the challan, and it was stated that a
wall had been constructed on the said land.
15.The State further contends that during cross-examination, the petitioner
admitted to having no claim over Khasra No. 2377 and did not object to
eviction from it, which reinforces the validity of the orders.
16.It was argued that the petitioner failed to produce any conclusive
evidence showing that the land in his possession falls within Khasra No.
2319 and not 2377, and the burden of proof lay entirely on him. The
concurrent findings of the Prescribed Authority and the Appellate Court,
it is claimed, are based on proper appreciation of facts and law and
warrant no interference.
17.Upon a careful evaluation of the record, this Court is of the considered
view that the impugned orders suffer from factual and legal infirmities.
4
Writ Petition No. 2607 of 2017 (M/S)-----A. K. Jain vs District Magistrate, Champawat and another
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:4654
At the core of the dispute lies the identification of the land allegedly
encroached by the petitioner.
18.The Prescribed Authority proceeded on the basis of the challan report
dated 05.09.2007, which claimed that the petitioner had encroached upon
03 Nali land in Khasra No. 2377. However, the foundational issue of
whether the land under the petitioner's possession actually lies in Khasra
No. 2377 was neither adequately examined nor established with
precision.
19.The report of the Patwari relied upon by the respondents does not contain
any definitive boundary markers or measurements in feet or meters. The
Patwari himself admitted that the land was measured only using an inch
tape, without demarcating proper boundaries or linking the site on the
ground to the revenue records in a verifiable manner.
20.The petitioner, on the contrary, has placed substantial documentary
evidence indicating that he is in possession of land situated in Khasra No.
2319, which he lawfully purchased through a registered sale deed dated
07.09.2006. This transaction is supported by the revenue entries and a
prior civil court decree dated 07.10.2013, wherein his possession over the
said land was upheld and protected. The boundaries detailed in the sale
deed, as well as in the civil court judgment, differ materially from those
described in the eviction order relating to Khasra No. 2377. It appears
that both the Prescribed Authority and the Appellate Court proceeded on
mere presumptions without conducting any on-site demarcation or
physical verification in the presence of both parties.
5
Writ Petition No. 2607 of 2017 (M/S)-----A. K. Jain vs District Magistrate, Champawat and another
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:4654
21.Further, the petitioner's statement that he has no concern with Khasra No.
2377 was misconstrued by the authorities. A disavowal of possession
over the said khasra cannot be read as an admission of illegal occupation.
Instead, it was a clarification aimed at rebutting the State's presumption.
The respondents also failed to establish through cogent evidence, either
by way of site plan, verified coordinates, or physical possession
status,that the petitioner was indeed in unlawful occupation of Khasra
No. 2377.
22.The burden of establishing unauthorized occupation under the Public
Premises Act lies squarely on the authority initiating eviction. In the
present case, this burden was not satisfactorily discharged. The
observations made by both the lower courts were largely repetitive and
devoid of independent reasoning. The failure to consider the petitioner's
documents, particularly the registered sale deed, mutation entries, and
civil court decree, shows a lack of judicial application of mind.
23.In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the
orders dated 07.05.2016 passed by the Learned Prescribed
Authority/Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Purnagiri and dated 14.06.2017
passed by the Learned District Judge, Champawat, cannot be sustained in
law or on facts. Both the authorities failed to ascertain the identity of the
land properly, did not appreciate material evidence on record, including
the registered sale deed and civil court decree in favour of the petitioner,
and acted solely on assumptions unsupported by reliable measurement or
verification. The petitioner has successfully established that he is in
possession of land bearing Khasra No. 2319, which is neither public land
nor under dispute in the eviction proceedings.
6
Writ Petition No. 2607 of 2017 (M/S)-----A. K. Jain vs District Magistrate, Champawat and another
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:4654
ORDER
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders
dated 07.05.2016 and 14.06.2017 are hereby quashed. The respondents are
restrained from taking any coercive action against the petitioner in relation to
the land situated in Khasra No. 2319, Village Jaul. There shall be no order as
to costs.
Ashish Naithani, J.
Dated: 02.06.2025
NR/
Writ Petition No. 2607 of 2017 (M/S)-----A. K. Jain vs District Magistrate, Champawat and another
Ashish Naithani J.
