IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND

AT NAINITAL

ON THE 30^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021

BEFORE:

HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI

Writ Petition (M/S) No. 404 of 2012

BETWEEN:

Rajendra Prasad.

……….Petitioner

(By Mr. Alok Kumar, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Sandeep Kothari,

Advocate)

AND:

State of Uttarakhand & another. ...Respondents

(By

Mr.

R.C.

Arya,

Standing

Counsel

for

the

State

of

Uttarakhand/respondents)

JUDGMENT

Petitioner is challenging the eviction order

dated 22.03.2010 passed by learned Prescribed

Authority under U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of

Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972. He is also

challenging the judgment dated 14.02.2012 rendered

by Additional District Judge, Tehri Garhwal in Misc.

Civil Appeal No. 04 of 2010, whereby petitioner’s

appeal filed under Section 9 of the aforesaid Act, was

dismissed.

2.

Proceedings under U.P. Public Premises

(Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972 were

initiated by issuing a notice under Section 4(1) of the

Act to the petitioner. The notice is on record as

Annexure No. CA-2 to the counter affidavit filed by

2

Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehri Garhwal. In the said

notice, it was alleged that petitioner is in unauthorised

occupation over public land admeasuring .003 hectare

comprised in Khatauni No. 193, Khasra No. 490, in

Village

Kaandi

Baglon,

Tehsil

Dhanaulti

since

November, 2004. It was further alleged that

petitioner has constructed a shop over the said land

and petitioner is having income of ` 50,000/- per

annum out of his unauthorized occupation over public

land.

3.

Petitioner responded to the said notice by

filing written statement contending that the provisions

contained in U.P. Public

Premises

(Eviction

of

Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972 are not applicable

in State of Uttarakhand. He denied the allegation that

he is in unauthorized occupation and contended that

the shop in question is in existence since long and it

cannot be treated as an unauthorised occupation. He

also disputed the statement made in the notice that

petitioner was having income of ` 50,000/- per annum

from the land in question.

4.

Learned Prescribed Authority ordered for

petitioner’s eviction from the land in question vide

order dated 22.03.2010. Perusal of the order passed

by learned Prescribed Authority reveals that petitioner

had admitted that he was in occupation of the land in

question for last 30-35 years but he could not prove

any right over the said land. Learned Prescribed

Authority was therefore justified in holding that

possession over government land, howsoever long,

3

cannot confer any right on the person occupying such

land.

5.

Petitioner filed an appeal under Section 9 of

U.P.

Public

Premises

(Eviction

of

Unauthorised

Occupants) Act, 1972, which was registered as Misc.

Civil Appeal No. 04 of 2010. Learned Additional

District Judge, Tehri Garhwal dismissed petitioner’s

appeal vide judgment dated 14.02.2012.

6.

Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and

orders passed by Prescribed Authority as well as the

Appellate Authority, petitioner has approached this

Court.

7.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the record.

8.

The order passed by learned Prescribed

Authority is a reasoned order, in which all relevant

aspects have been considered. From the order

passed by Prescribed Authority, it is apparent that

petitioner had given up his right to adduce evidence.

The officer, based on whose report proceedings were

initiated against petitioner, was examined as a

witness, who stated that he found petitioner’s

encroachment over public land.

9.

Learned

Appellate

Authority

has

also

considered and discussed all relevant aspects in

detail. The question, regarding applicability of

provisions contained in U.P. Public Premises (Eviction

of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972 in S