Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 534 (UTT)

DINESH SINGH PUNDIR v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2013-08-19

B.S.VERMA

body2013
JUDGMENT Hon’ble B.S. Verma, J. (Oral) By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing the judgment and order dated 11.08.2010, passed by the Prescribed Authority, Tehri Garhwal, in Eviction Case No. 54 of 2007, under section 4 of U.P. Public Premises Eviction of Unauthorised Occupant Act, and judgment and order dated 20.03.2013, passed by District and sessions Judge, Tehri Garhwal, in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 17 of 2010, Dinesh Singh Vs. State. 2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to this writ petition, as narrated in the writ petition are that a Challani Report, dated 17.03.2007, was submitted by Patwari Tapowan to the Collector, Tehri Garhwal, wherein it was mentioned that Shri Bachan Singh, has encroached upon Khasra (plot) No. 736, measuring 1.537 hectare, which is recorded under Class 9(33) in the name of State of Uttarakhand. It was alleged that the petitioner had constructed a house, garage and a temple over said land and he is earning profit of Rs. 4,800/- per year from said land. On the basis of Challani Report dated 17.03.2007, Collector, Tehri Garhwal, filed before the Prescribed Authority, Prescribed Authority, issued a notice under Section 4(1) of Public Premises Act, on 02.07.2007. Against said notice, objections have been filed by the petitioner. Both the petitioner as well as the State led their evidence before the Prescribed Authority. Patwari Tapowan, was examined as P.W.1, wherein he made a statement on oath that in compliance of order of Prescribed Authority dated 30.06.2009, he identified the land with the help of Khatauni and map on the spot and petitioner/opposite party Dinesh Singh, S/o Bachan Singh, was found in possession of said plot no. 736, measuring 0.054 hectare and on said land four rooms and temple have been constructed. Challani report was submitted by Patwari Indra Dev Uniyal on 17.03.2007. Petitioner was examined as D.W. 1 and he admitted that he had constructed a room and temple in the year 2006 but he has not filed any document of title to substantiate his claim that whether he is owner of the premises in question. Along with the challan report, the khatauni of the land for which notice was given, has been filed, wherein the State has recorded said land under Clause 9(3) and has been shown as ‘banjar’ land. 3. Along with the challan report, the khatauni of the land for which notice was given, has been filed, wherein the State has recorded said land under Clause 9(3) and has been shown as ‘banjar’ land. 3. In its objection, petitioner has mentioned that inspection was made in his presence. Petitioner admitted that he constructed a room and temple over the land in dispute but he failed to produce any document of title for the same in his favour, therefore, having heard learned counsel for the parties, the Prescribed Authority vide order dated 11.08.2010, came to the conclusion that the opposite party/petitioner is in unauthorized occupation of plot no. 736, measuring 0.054 hectare and passed the order of eviction and issued a notice under Section 4(1) of Public Premises Act and notice under Section 5 of the Act, was also issued to him. 4. Aggrieved by the order, an appeal was preferred. Appellate court partly allowed the appeal to the extent of damages on the ground that the State has failed to adduce the evidence for damages. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that notice is defective, as no demarcation was made on the land in dispute. 7. D.W. 1 himself admitted that he constructed rooms and temple over the land in dispute and there is no averment in the objection, which has been observed by the Prescribed Authority regarding title of the land that how come the land belongs to the petitioner/opposite party. 8. Learned appellate court has dealt the matter in detail and has given sufficient reasons in its order. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that even in the arguments placed before the Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner, failed to show any document of title in favour of the petitioner, which confirms his title over the land in dispute. Said fact is not disputed that the land in dispute is recorded in the name of the State Government and it is a public premises within the meaning of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971. 10. After perusal of both the judgments, it transpires that the petitioner encroached upon the land unauthorizedly in the year 2006, for which proceedings under Section 4/5 of Pubic Premises Act, have been initiated. 10. After perusal of both the judgments, it transpires that the petitioner encroached upon the land unauthorizedly in the year 2006, for which proceedings under Section 4/5 of Pubic Premises Act, have been initiated. Prescribed Authority as well as the appellate court has rightly passed the order of eviction. The writ petition is devoid of merit, therefore, the same is dismissed. However, petitioner is allowed three months time to vacate the premises in question.