JAGDISH PRASAD Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
Click here to view full judgement.
V.K.BIST, J. -
(1.) CONTROVERSY involved in all the petitions is identical, though
the petitioners vary, however the defendants are same and this Court has
to adhere and adjudicate upon a common question of law, therefore, common
order is being passed in all the petitions. Writ Petition No. 1257 of
2011 (M/S) shall be the leading case.
(2.) ALL the petitions have been filed assailing the orders of the Appellate Courts by which orders of Prescribed Authorities under U.P.
Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1972
(hereinafter referred to as the Act) were upheld. The petitioners are
challenging the validity of eviction proceedings initiated against them
by the State Government under the Act.
(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that no proceedings under the Act could be initiated against the petitioners
after the period of two years from the date of creation of State of
Uttarakhand, as the Act has not been adapted by the State of Uttarakhand
within stipulated period of two years, therefore, in absence of any
adaptation order of State of Uttarakhand, the provisions of the Act
cannot be permitted to be invoked after completion of stipulated period
from cut off date i.e. 09.11.2000.
It is asserted in some petitions that under the provisions of Kumaon Nayabad and Waste Lands Act, 1948, the tenure holder of the Kumaon
Division (which included Garhwal Division as well at that time) had a
right to extend his cultivation under the Act as right of extension. It
was also provided in the Act that the person so extending his
cultivation, shall possess the same rights over such extension as he has
in his original cultivation. In some of the petitions, the petitioners
claim their possession over the land in dispute, recorded in the name of
State Government and they had already constructed cowshed and hutment
thereon for their cattle and the land in dispute has been in possession
of the petitioners from the time of their ancestors. In some of the
petitions, the petitioners asserted that the land in dispute is shown in
the name of Van Panchayat. It is asserted that Rule 20 (b) of Panchayati
Forest Rules, 2005 entrusted on the management committee to institute and
defend the suits and proceedings in respect of the claims arising under
these Rules. Rule 25 (g) of Panchayati Forest Rules, 2005 fix duty on the
Surpanch to institute civil suits and launch prosecution on behalf of the
management committee. Hence, in respect of the land relating to the Van
Panchayat, no proceedings can be initiated on pursuance of the Revenue
Officer/Patwari by invoking the Act. In some of the petitions, it is
alleged that the property in dispute is totally out of public use and the
local public has also no objection upon the use of the property, which is
in the possession of the petitioners and which is registered in the name
of the petitioners in Khata -Khatauni. In some petitions it is asserted
that the land in dispute was in occupation of the petitioners in the
capacity of tenant on behalf of its landlords.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.