Hon'Ble Pankaj Purohit vs Unknown
2025 Latest Caselaw 5485 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Hon'Ble Pankaj Purohit vs Unknown on 13 November, 2025

Author: Pankaj Purohit

Bench: Pankaj Purohit

             Office Notes, reports, orders or
SL.          proceedings or directions and
      Date                                                                        COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No                Registrar's order with
                       Signatures




                                                WPMS No.3153 of 2025
                                                Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.

Mr. Naman Kamboj, learned counsel for the petitioners.

2. Mr. K.S. Mehta, learned Additional C.S.C. for the State.

3. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the judgment and order dated 27.04.2023, passed by the Prescribed Authority, Narendra Nagar, Tehri Garhwal, in Eviction Case No. 39 of 2014-15, State vs. Shri Chakradhar Prasad Nautiyal & others, under the provisions of Section 4 of the Uttar Pradesh Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972 (for short, "the Act, 1972"), whereby the petitioners were directed to be evicted from the land alleged to be under their unauthorized occupation as well as the judgment and order dated 14.10.2025, passed by the learned District Judge, Tehri Garhwal, in Appeal No. 71 of 2023, Smt. Mandodari Devi & others vs. State of Uttarakhand, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioners was dismissed and the judgment and order dated 27.04.2023, passed by the Prescribed Authority, was upheld.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that, since the stage of filing the reply to the notice under Section 4 of the Act, 1972, the case of the petitioners has been that their predecessor, Shri Chakradhar Prasad Nautiyal, was issued a Patta over the disputed land and

that subsequently the said land was converted into freehold. Therefore, their occupation over the said land cannot be termed unauthorized. It is further contended that this argument of the petitioners has not been duly considered either by the learned trial court or by the learned appellate court, and that the order of eviction has been passed in a mechanical manner merely on the basis that the land was recorded as State land.

5. I have perused both the impugned judgments and orders, as well as the objection/written statement filed by the petitioners' predecessor, Shri Chakradhar Prasad Nautiyal, in the proceedings, which have been quoted in the impugned order itself and I am of the view that the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners appears to have some force. The matter requires detailed deliberation, for which a counter affidavit is necessary.

6. Learned State Counsel prays for and is granted four weeks' time to file counter affidavit.

7. List on 17.12.2025.

8. Till the next date of listing, it is directed that petitioners shall not be evicted from the land in-question.

9. Stay application (IA No.1/2025) stands disposed of accordingly.

(Pankaj Purohit, J.) 13.11.2025 AK