US Constitution Trumps Presidential Tariff Powers
28 Feb 2026
Non-Compliance with Court Summons Amounts to Contempt: Allahabad HC Issues Warrant Against HDFC Life Branch Head in Cheating Bail Case
02 Mar 2026
Bank Can Adjust OTS Deposit on Borrower Default, No Cheating u/s 420 IPC: Delhi High Court
02 Mar 2026
Divij Kumar Quits CMS INDUSLAW for Independent Practice
03 Mar 2026
Global Lawyers Debate AI Liability in Autonomous Vehicles
03 Mar 2026
CCPA Fines Startup ₹8 Lakh for False Child Growth Claims
05 Mar 2026
Madras High Court Scoffs at Police Custody Injury Claim
05 Mar 2026
India's Criminal Investigations Face Systemic Conviction Crisis
05 Mar 2026
Kerala HC Slams TDB Financial Discipline in Ayyappa Conclave, Orders Auditor Report on Past Anomalies: High Court of Kerala
06 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
SHARAD KUMAR SHARMA
Shakuntala Raj – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
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 pur
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.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the definition of public premises under the U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1972 and the re....
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the respondents will not interfere in the possession of the land if the petitioners are occupying the land as recorded owner against their ....
The judgment emphasized the importance of compliance with legal provisions for eviction notices and highlighted the need for specific retrospective provisions in legislation to take away protected ri....
Unauthorized occupation of public premises does not confer legal rights; eviction proceedings must adhere to statutory requirements, and alleged violations of natural justice must be substantiated.
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
Listen Article