Uttarakhand High Court
WPMS/1597/2025 on 27 June, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
2025:UHC:5492
Office Notes,
reports, orders or
SL. proceedings or
Date COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No. directions and
Registrar's order
with Signatures
WPMS No. 1597 of 2025
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
Mr. Vishwast Kandal & Mr. Akshay Joshi,
Advocates for the petitioner.
2. Mr. K.N. Joshi, Deputy Advocate General
with Mr. Dinesh Bankoti, Brief Holder for the
State of Uttarakhand.
3. Proceedings under Public Premises
(Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972
were initiated against petitioner by issuing a
notice under Section 4(1) thereof. Petitioner
appeared before Prescribed Authority, but did not
file any reply / objection. Learned Prescribed
Authority, after hearing the oral submissions
made on behalf of the petitioner, passed eviction
order against him on 20.02.2024.
4. Petitioner challenged the eviction order in
an appeal under Section 9 of the aforesaid Act.
The appeal has been dismissed by learned District
Judge, Nainital vide judgment dated 28.03.2025.
Thus, feeling aggrieved by the order passed by
learned Prescribed Authority as affirmed by
learned District Judge, petitioner has approached
this Court.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record.
6. Since petitioner did not file any reply /
objection before Prescribed Authority, therefore,
2025:UHC:5492
Prescribed Authority was justified in passing the
eviction order against him. Before learned District
Judge, petitioner claimed adverse possession by
stating that he is in possession over the land in
question since last 40 years, however, he could
not produce any evidence in support of his
contention that he is in possession over the land in
question for such a long period, although
petitioner produced Aadhar Card, Electricity
Connection, Voter Identity Card etc., before the
Appellate Court, however, those documents
nowhere indicated that petitioner was residing
over the particular plot regarding which eviction
proceedings were initiated against him.
7. Even otherwise also, the plea of adverse
possession cannot be considered in summary
proceedings under Public Premises (Eviction of
Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972 and the title
can only be declared by a competent court, civil or
revenue.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that notice was issued in the name of Balam Singh
while the name of petitioner is Bhopal Singh.
9. Per contra, learned State Counsel submits
that Bhopal Singh and Balam Singh is one and the
same person, which is apparent from the fact that
petitioner has challenged the eviction order passed
against Balam Singh.
10. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted
that petitioner was not heard by Prescribed
2025:UHC:5492
Authority while passing the eviction order.
Learned District Judge dealt with the said
contention and held that after service of notice,
petitioner appeared before Prescribed Authority
and sought time for filing objection and thereafter
he did not appear before the Prescribed Authority,
therefore, the contention that petitioner was not
given opportunity of hearing cannot be accepted.
11. This Court concurs with the reasoning given
by learned District Judge. After due service of
notice issued under Section 4 (1) of the aforesaid
Act, there is no requirement of any further notice
to a person, who allegedly is in unauthorised
occupation. Non-filing of reply to the notice by
petitioner cannot be capitalised by him, as it
indicates that he had nothing to say in the matter.
The plea of adverse possession taken by him
before the Appellate Court also cannot be
considered in summary proceedings under
aforesaid Act and such plea can be taken only in a
regular suit.
12. Thus, there is no scope for interference. The
writ petition fails and is dismissed.
(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
27.06.2025
Navin