Uttarakhand High Court
WPMS/1456/2025 on 5 June, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
Office Notes,
reports, orders
SL. or proceedings
Date
No or directions and
Registrar's order
with Signatures
WPMS No. 1456 of 2025
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J
Mr. Pavan Kumar Nath, learned counsel for
the petitioner.
2. Mr. K.N. Joshi, learned Deputy Advocate
General for the State of Uttarakhand.
3. Proceedings under Public Premises (Eviction
of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972 were
initiated against petitioner by issuing notice
under Section 4 thereof. Petitioner gave reply to
the notice. The Prescribed Authority found reply
given by petitioner to be unsatisfactory and
passed order of eviction against him. Petitioner
challenged the eviction order in an appeal.
District Judge, Chamoli has dismissed the Appeal,
vide judgment dated 28.02.2025. Thus, feeling
aggrieved, petitioner has approached this Court
challenging the order passed by Prescribed
Authority as affirmed by District Judge.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the judgment.
5. In his reply to the notice issued under
Section 4(1) of Public Premises (Eviction of
Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972, petitioner
had taken up the stand that the land was
originally leased to one Sri Mangal Lal and
Sri Mangal Lal, to whom lease was granted by
State Government, had transferred the
possession to petitioner in the year 2004, and
thereafter, petitioner constructed a residential
house upon the said land.
6. Learned State Counsel submits that there
was no document whatsoever enclosed with the
reply to the notice under Section 4(1) of the Act.
He further submits that even if the stand taken
by petitioner in his reply is accepted at its face
value, then also, petitioner is proved to be an
unauthorised occupant, as he had no authority to
occupy public land, and the lease if at all granted
to Sri Mangal Lal, was not transferable without
prior permission of the competent authority.
7. I have gone through the eviction order
passed by Prescribed Authority as affirmed by
District Judge in Appeal. Both the learned courts
below have given valid reasons for holding the
petitioner to be in unauthorised occupation over
Government land. In the absence of any clinching
evidence to show that petitioner had any
semblance of right, title or interest over the land
upon which he has constructed house, this Court
do not find any scope for interference in the
matter.
8. Learned counsel for petitioner then submits
that petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste
community and as per Government policy, he is
entitled for regularisation of his possession over
public land.
9. Learned State Counsel submits that, if that
is so, he may approach the competent authority,
by making an application for the said purpose.
10. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of
by permitting petitioner to make application for
regularisation of his unauthorised occupation
over public land to District Magistrate, Chamoli. If
he makes such application within three weeks
from today, decision thereupon shall be taken by
the District Magistrate, within six months
thereafter. Till decision on petitioner's
application, he shall not be dispossessed.
(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J)
05.06.2025
Navin
