Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 139 (UTT)

Pramod Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand

2016-03-28

K.M.JOSEPH, V.K.BIST

body2016
JUDGMENT : K.M. Jospeh, J. This writ petition has been filed in public interest seeking the following relief: “1. A writ order or direction directing the respondents to remove the encroachment from the public road namely “approach road from District Hospital to Gandhi Chauk” & “Siltham to Gandhi Chauk” and restore its original dimensions.” 2. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the District Magistrate, wherein it is stated as follows: “B- That it is submitted that the District Administration, time and again, considers the issue of the encroachment and further as and when, the complaint is made before the District Magistrate or any officer of the District Administration, appropriate steps are taken in this regard. C- That it is relevant to mention here that when the issue of encroachment within the territorial limits of Nagar Palika Parishad, Pithoragarh has been brought to the knowledge of District Administration, the Superintendent of Police, had written the letter on 24-06-2015 and in pursuance of the aforesaid communication, on 13th July, 2015 a committee was constituted in the Chairmanship of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Pithoragarh and the committee has been directed to do the needful in the matter. It is further submitted that further the direction has been issued vide order dated 01-08-2015 by the District Magistrate, Pithoragarh, whereby the Sub Divisional Magistrate has been directed to take appropriate steps on regular interval for the removal of encroachment.” 3. We heard Mr. Birendra Singh Adhikari, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Rajeev Singh Bist, Brief Holder for the State, Mr. Rajesh Nagarkoti, learned counsel for respondent no.5 and also Mr. Piyush Garg, learned counsel for the interveners. 4. Mr. Piyush Garg, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the interveners would submit that there is no encroachment. What happened, according to him, was there was a fire which gutted their shops and, as a rehabilitation measure, they have been allotted the present place, where they are operating. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we dispose of the writ petition as follows: Besides recording the submission of the District Magistrate in the affidavit, we direct that firm, prompt and effective steps be taken but in accordance with law for the removal of all encroachments from public land. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we dispose of the writ petition as follows: Besides recording the submission of the District Magistrate in the affidavit, we direct that firm, prompt and effective steps be taken but in accordance with law for the removal of all encroachments from public land. As far as the case of interveners is concerned, we make it clear that they will be free to set up their version and certainly the issue must be gone into when an opportunity of hearing is afforded to them and appropriate decision will be taken. It is made clear that we have not rendered any finding as to whether the interveners are encroachers.