Unauthorized occupancy of public land without valid allotment under the U.P. Public Premises Act and granting time for eviction based on the duration of occupancy.

JUDGMENT :

It is contended by the petitioner that, on an account of the landslide and heavy rain, which had chanced in 2011, she claimed that she was rehabilitated and she claims to have been settled on Khasra No.2050/2969 on Khata Khatauni No.184 situated in Gopeshwar.

2. The said claim of rehabilitation is, admittedly, based upon the alleged oral allotment which has been made orally by the respondent-authorities and there is no document on record, as such, to show that under what legally recognized mode, the land was allotted to the present petitioner.

3. In that eventuality, in the absence of there being any legally acceptable documents on record to prove her valid allotment of land, her occupancy over the property lying in Khata Khatauni No.184, which, according to the revenue record, is a Non Z.A. land and being a Non Z.A. land having a total area of 124.77 hectares, out of which, some of the part has been allocated to the jail authorities. The part, which has been occupied by the present petitioner, on the purported ground of re-settlement, is not a property, which has been ever legally vested with the present petitioner.

4. The said aspect stands fortified from the fact that, its the petitioner’s case herself, that she has applied for a grant of allotment of land under the provisions of the Government Grant Act and, admittedly, no allotment, as such, has been made in her favour till now.

5. Consequently, since her occupancy over the land, was being a land recorded as a public premises land, thereby, Form-A was issued by way of a notice under Section 5 of the Public Premises Act on 12.05.2016, which was replied by the petitioner. The reply, since being dissatisfactory, a Case No.02/2015-16, “State Vs. Shakuntala Raj” stood instituted under the provisions of U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1972, which eventually stood decided by an order of 23.08.2018 holding therein, that the occupancy of the present petitioner over the land since being without any allotment order, as such and, admittedly, when the land was shown to be a public land, her occupancy over Khata No.184, which is a land recorded in Js.kh 9&2(d), which was under the management of forest panchayat, she was found to be an authorized occupant.

6. Consequently, after the closure of evidence, the Court of the Prescribed Authority by an order dated 23.08.2018, has observed that the Xerox copy of the alleged documentations, made for the purpose of the said allotment, cannot be read in evidence and, furthermore, because there was no allotment order on record, ever since the rehabilitation of the petitioner and since there being a ban created for allotment of any land, the applicant was held to be an unauthorized occupant. Consequently, an eviction order was passed on 23.08.2018, which upon its challenge in an appeal under Section 9 of the U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1972 stood affirmed with the dismissal of Misc. Application No.23 of 2018.

7. As a consequence to the Appellate Court’s judgment, which has concurrently recorded a finding about the unauthorized occupancy of the present applicant over the public land, the eviction was directed to be made, consequent to which, the learned Prescribed Authority has issued a notice under form-“x”, under Rule 3 of the Rules framed under the U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1972 and hence, the writ-petition has been filed.

8. This matter was taken up in the pre-lunch session. The learned counsel for the petitioner, was called upon to show as to how a valid right has been created in her favour, to occupy a land, which is otherwise a land lying in Js.kh&9 and is vested in the village forest panchayat.

9. There were no such document which were placed either before the Court below or even before this Court, to show that the occupancy of a public land of the petitioner was legally sustainable in the eyes of law. Hence, the learned counsel for the