Sushila Devi v. State of Uttarakhand

SL. No. Dat e Office Not es, r epor t s, or der s or pr oceedin gs or dir ect ion s an d Regist r ar 's or der w it h Sign at u r es COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS

WPMS No. 3556 of 2024 Hon 'ble Man oj Ku m ar Tiw ar i, A.C.J.

Mr. Himanshu Joshi, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶2Mr. Rajesh Pandey & Mr. Yogesh Chandra Tiwari, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand.

¶3Petitioner has challenged the eviction order passed by Prescribed Authority under U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972. He has also challenged the judgment rendered by learned District Judge in Misc. Appeal No. 70 of 2023.

¶4It transpires that a notice under Section 4(1) of the aforesaid Act was issued to petitioner, alleging that she is in unauthorised occupation over public land and she was called upon to show cause as to why eviction order be not passed against her. Petitioner filed objection against said notice, however, thereafter, neither appeared before the Prescribed Authority nor did she led any evidence for the purpose. Learned Prescribed Authority passed eviction order against on

01.06.2023. Petitioner filed Appeal under Section 9 of the aforesaid Act, which has been dismissed by learned District Judge, Tehri Garhwal, vide judgment dated

28.10.2024. Challenging these two judgment and orders, petitioner has

approached this Court.

¶5Learned counsel for submits that the notice under Section 4(1) was issued to petitioner, without proper measurement of land.

He further submitted that affidavit of the examination-in-chief of the witnesses was not filed before the Prescribed Authority, therefore, the impugned eviction order is unsustainable in the eyes of law. He further submitted that petitioner has long continuous possession over the land in question, therefore, she could not have been ordered to be evicted therefrom in summary proceedings.

¶6Per contra, learned State Counsel submits that notice was issued to petitioner after proper measurement of the land found to be encroached upon by her. He further submits that proceedings under the aforesaid Act are summary in nature and there is no requirement of filing affidavit of examination-in-chief of the witnesses before the Prescribed Authority. He further submits that possession, howsoever long, over public land does not create any right in favour of the trespasser and his status remains that of a trespasser, who can be removed any time. He further submits that petitioner do not claim title over the land in question and she only asserted her possession thereupon and learned Prescribed Authority was justified in passing order of eviction against her. He further submits that learned Prescribed Authority has considered

each and every aspect of the matter and has passed reasoned order against petitioner, which was rightly affirmed by learned District Judge in Appeal.

¶7Perused the judgment and order passed by Prescribed Authority as well as learned District Judge. Since learned Prescribed Authority has considered the relevant aspect and has passed eviction order, as per law, therefore, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the same. Learned District Judge was thus justified in dismissing the appeal filed by petitioner.

¶8Thus, this court declines to interfere in the matter.

¶9Learned counsel for then submitted that petitioner has constructed a residential house over the land in question and there is no other place available to petitioner to reside, hence, she be given two and half years time for vacating the land in question.

¶10Learned State Counsel, however, submitted that two and half years, as prayed by petitioner, is too long a period and this Court may grant some reasonable time for vacating the land.

¶11The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of by permitting petitioner to vacate the land in question, within eighteen months. Petitioner shall file an undertaking to this effect in the shape of an affidavit before learned Prescribed Authority, within three

weeks from today. In the event, petitioner fails to file such an affidavit within the stipulated period; she shall be liable to be evicted forthwith.

( Man oj Ku m ar Tiw ar i, A.C.J.)

24.12.2024 Navin

NAVEEN CHANDRA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,

2.5.4.20=3be23325146e76a0642bdf4943fb9046f487df006da 82a131bb4e4403d3ctia15, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=18167EEFB5CA8CFFD421A103819DA875643A F56D653D095C6ED9A86DAAB21CE5, cn=NAVEEN CHANDRA Date: 2024.12.26 10:04:18 +05'30'