Office Notes,

reports, orders or proceedings

SL.

Date or directions COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS

No.

and Registrar’s

order with Signatures

WPMS No. 2866 of 2024

With

WPMS No. 3193 of 2024

Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J

1. Mr. D.S. Mehta, learned counsel for

the petitioners.

2. Mr. Narayan Dutt, learned Standing

Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand.

3. Mr. B.S. Bisht, learned counsel for the respondent – Nagar Palika Parishad

Nainital.

4. Mr. Pankaj Chaturvedi, learned

counsel for the respondent.

5. Since common questions of fact and law are involved in these petitions, therefore, both the petitions are clubbed together and decided by this common judgment. However, for the sake of brevity and convenience, facts of WPMS No. 2866 of 2024 alone are being

considered.

6. According to petitioners, they are residing over the houses standing over land belonging to State Government for the last four decades and some of them are also having valid allotment orders in their favour, however, Executive Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad has issued notice on 30.09.2024, asking them to vacate

the land in question, within a week.

7. In the impugned notice, it is provided that petitioners shall be rehabilitated for a period of three months at some alternate site at Durgapur, with

Nainital Tehsil.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners

submits that petitioners belongs to poor strata of society and they have no other place to stay and due to their long possession, they have acquired a right to enjoy the property and they have also perfected their title, therefore, the eviction notice is illegal.

9. Per contra, Mr. B.S. Bisht, learned counsel for respondent-Nagar Palika Parishad submits that petitioners are unauthorised occupants, without any order of allotment by the Competent Authority and the land in question is needed for construction of multi-level parking to address the parking problem of Nainital Town. He further submits that petitioners have been provided alternate accommodation, initially for three months, so that petitioners may make some alternate arrangement for their residence in the meantime.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that three of the petitioners have moved application for grant of freehold right to the Competent Authority, which is pending.

11. Learned counsel for the Nagar Palika submits that application for freehold, filed by one of the petitioners, was rejected by Nagar Palika Parishad and applications made by other two petitioners are under process. He further submits that as per policy, freehold rights can be given only in respect of such land which is not needed for any public purpose. He further submits that since petitioners are rank trespassers over Government Land and in view of the pressing need of the land for multilevel parking, the Authorities are justified in asking the petitioners to vacate the