[ad_1]
Uttarakhand High Court
WPMS/1299/2025 on 8 May, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
2025:UHC:3692
Office Notes,
reports, orders or
SL. proceedings or
Date COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No. directions and
Registrar's order
with Signatures
WPMS/1299/2025
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
Mr. S.K. Posti, Senior Advocate assisted by
Mr. Ashutosh Posti, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. S.K. Nailwal, Standing Counsel for the
State.
2. Proceedings under Public Premises (Eviction
of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972 were
initiated against petitioner by issuing a notice.
Petitioner gave reply to the notice in which he
stated that he has made application for grant of
lease in respect of the land in question and that
application is pending before the Competent
Authority.
3. He further contended that as many as 15
persons who applied for lease were granted
leasehold rights and out of 15 those persons, one
was given lease for constructing Dharamshala.
4. The Prescribed Authority passed eviction
order against petitioner on 11.06.2021. Petitioner,
thereafter, preferred Appeal under Section 9 of the
aforesaid Act, which too has been dismissed by
learned District Judge, Chamoli, vide judgment
dated 20.03.2025. Challenging the aforesaid
judgment and orders, petitioner has approached
this Court.
2025:UHC:3692
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that since petitioner’s application for grant of lease
is pending before the District Magistrate and
petitioner was badly affected by earthquake that
hit District Chamoli in 1999, therefore, order of
eviction passed by Prescribed Authority is unjust
and unsustainable. He submits that Appellate
Court also overlooked this aspect, therefore,
judgment rendered by appellate Court is also
liable to be set aside.
6. Learned State Counsel, per contra, submits
that the stand taken by petitioner that his
application for grant of lease is pending before the
competent authority shows that petitioner’s
possession over the land in question was
unauthorised and he did not have any title over the
land.
7. Learned State Counsel submits that so long
as the application for lease is not decided in favour
of petitioner and lease is not granted, he has no
right to occupy public land.
8. This Court finds substance in the submission
made by State Counsel.
9. Thus, there is no scope for interference with
the impugned order passed by Prescribed
Authority, as affirmed by learned District Judge.
However, having regard to the fact that petitioner
2025:UHC:3692
was affected by earthquake, which hit Chamoli in
1999 and resulted in substantial damage to the
house of the petitioner, I dispose of this writ
petition with liberty to petitioner to make fresh
application for grant of lease, qua the land in
question.
10. If petitioner makes such application within
three weeks from today, the District Magistrate
concerned shall take decision thereupon, as per
law within six months thereafter.
11. For a period of eight months or till decision
is taken on petitioner’s application, whoever is
earlier, status quo, qua the structure raised by
petitioner, shall be maintained.
12. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed
of.
(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
08.05.2025
Mahinder/
Digitally signed by MAHINDER SINGH
MAHINDER SINGH
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=da6212e6e78d94ed3134842bc6a8d6ca168979ca7b8c2f031a92d1a18b08923c,
postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=AB77B7C5B240908B392BE84F5CDD4C2AF35DC4626D305B1BC9EA4BABA43D2B8F,
cn=MAHINDER SINGH
Date: 2025.05.09 20:23:08 +05’30’
[ad_2]
Source link