Uttarakhand High Court
WPMS/2278/2025 on 8 August, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
2025:UHC:6978
Office Notes,
reports, orders or
SL. proceedings or
Date COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No. directions and
Registrar's order
with Signatures
WPMS/2278/2025
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J
1.
Mr. M.K. Chand, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
2. Mr. K.N. Joshi, learned Deputy Advocate
General for the State of Uttarakhand.
3. Proceedings under the UP Public Premises
(Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972
were initiated against the petitioner by issuing a
notice under Section 4(1) of the said Act, in which,
it was stated that petitioner is in unauthorised
occupation over Government land. Petitioner gave
reply to notice stating that her father-in-law
constructed a cow shed over the said land in 1980
and after his death, petitioner is continuing in
possession over the land in question.
4. The Prescribed Authority passed eviction
order against petitioner on 06.09.2022, by holding
that petitioner could not prove that the chalani
report and the demarcation done by revenue
authorities is incorrect. It was further held that
petitioner could not produce any document
regarding title over the land nor she could adduce
any evidence in support of her contention that her
possession is lawful. It was further held that the
structure raised by petitioner is standing over
Government land without any authority, therefore
she is liable to be evicted, and accordingly, passed
order of eviction against petitioner.
5. Petitioner preferred an appeal against the
eviction order. Learned District Judge, Chamoli
dismissed the appeal by passing a detailed judgment
on 22.04.2025.
6. Thus, feeling aggrieved, petitioner has
approached this Court challenging the eviction
order, as affirmed by learned District Judge.
2025:UHC:6978
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record.
8. Learned counsel for petitioner contended that
the proceedings, which were initiated against
petitioner, were malafide as petitioner lodged an
FIR against the Gram Pradhan on 06.06.2011 and
due to influence of the Gram Pradhan, revenue
authorities submitted a chalani report, based on
which notice under Section 4 of the aforesaid Act
was given to petitioner. He further submits that
since petitioner has long continuous possession over
the land in question, therefore, she could not have
been evicted from the said land in a summary
manner.
9. In para no. 4 of the writ petition, however,
petitioner has stated that her husband constructed
house over the land in question in 2006. Thus, the
contention that petitioner is in possession over the
land since 1980 gets belied.
10. In proceedings under the aforesaid Act,
although, the initial burden of proof lies upon the
public authority to demonstrate that the occupant is
in unauthorised possession of the public premises,
however, once the public authority presents
evidence supporting its claim, a prima facie case is
established and the burden then shifts to the
occupant to demonstrate that he has the necessary
authorisation to occupy the premises.
11. In the present case, State established a prima
facie case that petitioner is in unauthorised
occupation over Government land. Petitioner,
however, failed to lead any evidence to demonstrate
that she has the necessary authorization for
occupying the Government land. Thus, the
Prescribed Authority was justified in passing the
eviction order. The contentions raised by petitioner
have been noted and dealt with by the Prescribed
Authority in the order of eviction passed by him.
12. This Court does not find any infirmity in the
findings returned by the Prescribed Authority. The
Appellate Court rightly refused to interfere with the
2025:UHC:6978
Prescribed Authority’s order. Thus, there is no scope
for interference in this writ petition.
13. Learned counsel for the petitioner then
submits that petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste
and as per Government Policy, persons belonging to
weaker sections of society are entitled to
regularisation of their possession over Government
land. He submits that petitioner may be permitted to
make application for regularisation of her
unauthorised occupation.
14. Learned State Counsel submits that if there is
any such Government Policy, then he does not have
any objection, if petitioner is permitted to make
application to the competent authority.
15. The writ petition is, accordingly disposed of
with liberty to petitioner to make application to the
Competent Authority for regularising her
unauthorised occupation over the land in question
as per Government Policy. If petitioner makes such
application within three weeks from today, the
Competent Authority shall take decision thereupon,
within nine months thereafter. For a period of ten
months or till decision is taken by the competent
authority, whichever is earlier, petitioner shall not
be dispossessed from the land in question.
(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J)
08.08.2025
Navin
NAVEEN
Digitally signed by NAVEEN CHANDRA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF
UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=3be23325146e76a0642bdf4943fb9046f487df006da82a131bb4e
CHANDRA
4403d3c0a15, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=18167EEFB5CA8CFFD421A103819DA875643AF56D653D0
95C6ED9A86DAAB21CE5, cn=NAVEEN CHANDRA
Date: 2025.08.09 12:46:48 +05’30’