Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
Brijesh Lal Sah - Appellant
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand & Anr. - Respondents
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2636 of 2021
Decided On : 10-12-2021
Eviction - U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972 - The court upheld the eviction of the petitioner from public premises due to unauthorized occupation without any lawful authority.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was ordered to be evicted from public premises due to unauthorized occupation, and the petitioner's appeal against the order was dismissed by the District Judge.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the writ petition suffered from delay and laches, and there were concurrent findings of unauthorized occupation against the petitioner with no evidence of any right, title, or interest over the land.
Issues: Delay and laches in the writ petition, unauthorized occupation of public premises, lack of evidence of right, title, or interest over the land.
Ratio Decidendi: The court did not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order due to the delay and laches in the writ petition and the lack of evidence supporting the petitioner's claim.
Final Decision: The writ petition failed and was dismissed, allowing the petitioner to challenge the order in appeal.
JUDGMENT
Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. - Proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under provisions of U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972.
2. Learned Prescribed Authority ordered for petitioner's eviction from the land in question by holding that petitioner is occupying public premises without any authority of law. Petitioner filed appeal against the order passed by Prescribed Authority, which too has been dismissed by learned District Judge, Bageshwar, vide judgment dated 30.11.2017. Feeling aggrieved by these two orders, petitioner has approached this Court.
3. The writ petition suffers from delay and laches and there is no plausible explanation for delay of more than three years. Even otherwise also, there are concurrent findings of fact against the petitioner that he is in unauthorized occupation over Government land and there is no evidence on record to show that petitioner had any semblance of any right, title or interest over the subject land.
4. In such view of the matter, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order.
5. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is dismissed.
6. It shall be open to the petitioner to challenge the order passed by District Level Development Authority, Bageshwar, in appeal.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
