Office Notes,

reports, orders or

S N L o. .

Date

p d r ir o e c c e t e i d on in s g a s n o d r

COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS

Registrar’s order

with Signatures

WPMS/2278/2025

Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J

1. Mr. M.K. Chand, learned counsel for the

petitioner.

2. Mr. K.N. Joshi, learned Deputy Advocate

General for the State of Uttarakhand.

3. Proceedings under the UP Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972 were initiated against the petitioner by issuing a notice under Section 4(1) of the said Act, in which, it was stated that petitioner is in unauthorised occupation over Government land. Petitioner gave reply to notice stating that her father-in-law constructed a cow shed over the said land in 1980 and after his death, petitioner is continuing in

possession over the land in question.

4. The Prescribed Authority passed eviction order against petitioner on 06.09.2022, by holding that petitioner could not prove that the chalani report and the demarcation done by revenue authorities is incorrect. It was further held that petitioner could not produce any document regarding title over the land nor she could adduce any evidence in support of her contention that her possession is lawful. It was further held that the structure raised by petitioner is standing over Government land without any authority, therefore she is liable to be evicted, and accordingly, passed

order of eviction against petitioner.

5. Petitioner preferred an appeal against the eviction order. Learned District Judge, Chamoli dismissed the appeal by passing a detailed judgment

on 22.04.2025.

6. Thus, feeling aggrieved, petitioner has approached this Court challenging the eviction

order, as affirmed by learned District Judge.

perused the record.

the proceedings, which were initiated against petitioner, were malafide as petitioner lodged an FIR against the Gram Pradhan on 06.06.2011 and due to influence of the Gram Pradhan, revenue authorities submitted a chalani report, based on which notice under Section 4 of the aforesaid Act was given to petitioner. He further submits that since petitioner has long continuous possession over the land in question, therefore, she could not have been evicted from the said land in a summary manner.

9. In para no. 4 of the writ petition, however, petitioner has stated that her husband constructed house over the land in question in 2006. Thus, the contention that petitioner is in possession over the land since 1980 gets belied.

10. In proceedings under the aforesaid Act, although, the initial burden of proof lies upon the public authority to demonstrate that the occupant is in unauthorised possession of the public premises, however, once the public authority presents evidence supporting its claim, a prima facie case is established and the burden then shifts to the occupant to demonstrate that he has the necessary authorisation to occupy the premises.

11. In the present case, State established a prima facie case that petitioner is in unauthorised occupation over Government land. Petitioner, however, failed to lead any evidence to demonstrate that she has the necessary authorization for occupying the Government land. Thus, the Prescribed Authority was justified in passing the eviction order. The contentions raised by petitioner have been noted and dealt with by the Prescribed Authority in the order of eviction passed by him.

12. This Court does not find any infirmity in the findings returned by the Prescribed Authority. The Appellate Court rightly refused to interfere with the