High Court · 2025

Mr. Piyush Garg, Advocat e for t he pet it ioner.

2. Mr. Ganesh Dut t Kandpal, Deput y Advocat e General t he St at e of Ut t arakhand / respondent nos. 1 & 2.

3. Mr. Advocat e for respondent no. 3. Bhupendra Singh Bisht ,

4. By m eans of pet it ioner has sought reliefs: - t his writ pet it ion, following t he “i. To issue a writ or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the notice dated 30.09.2024 (Annexure no. 9) and 22.12.2023 (Annexure no. 6) issued by respondent no. 3 by means of which the petitioner has been directed to vacate the premises in question and failing which forceful dispossession has been directed. ii. To issue a writ or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents from interfering into and dispossessing the petitioner from the land in question till disposal of the present writ petition. iii. To direct the respondent no. 2 to decide the the petitioner as freehold application of pending expeditiously as possible” t o perm it t ed t he pet it ioner, her 5. According husband was const ruct ion over a piece of land, above ret aining wall of balianala near t he Nainit al t own and const ruct ion was raised upon such land by her husband soon t hereaft er. t o

6. Learned counsel for t he pet it ioner point s out t hat pet it ioner’s husband was a Group- D em ployee in Jal Nigam . Pet it ioner is aggrieved by t wo not ices, issued by Execut ive Officer, Nagar Palika first one was Parishad Nainit al. The issued on 22.12.2023 and t he second one was issued on 30.09.2024. By t hese not ices, pet it ioner was asked t o vacat e t he land in quest ion, by holding t hat she is in unaut horised occupat ion over such t he St at e land, which belongs Governm ent . t o a t hat

7. Learned counsel for t he pet it ioner subm it s 1985, t he pet it ioner’s husband, who belonged t o poor st rat a of societ y, was having difficult y resident ial finding accom m odat ion, t herefore he m ade represent at ion t o t he Chief Minist er and t he Chief Minist er wrot e a let t er dat ed 07.07.1985 t o t he Dist rict Magist rat e t o look int o t he grievance raised by him , and on t he inst ruct ions issued by t he Dist rict Magist rat e, t he Execut ive Officer, Nagar Palika orally perm it t ed pet it ioner’s husband t o raise const ruct ion over t he land in quest ion. He t hus subm it s t hat aft er nearly 40 years, of pet it ioner’s possession over t he land in quest ion, she cannot be asked t he land, which is a lit t le m ore t han 80 sqr. m t r. t o vacat e t o

8. Per cont ra, counsel learned for Nagar Palika Parishad appearing subm it s t hat t here is no let t er or order issued by any aut horit y perm it t ing t he pet it ioner or her husband const ruct ion over t he land in quest ion. He furt her subm it s t hat t he land belongs t o t he St at e Governm ent and st at us of t he pet it ioner is t hat of an unaut horised occupant . He furt her subm it s t hat t he const ruct ion of m ult ilevel parking, which St at e Governm ent has also t o released pet it ioner’s unaut horised occupat ion over however, quest ion needed fund, t he land in quest ion, t he const ruct ion work could not com m ence. He furt her subm it s t hat pet it ioner earlier filed a suit for perm anent inj unct ion and when learned Trial Court refused t o grant ex- part e t em porary inj unct ion in her favour, t hen she filed a writ pet it ion before t his Court , which was disposed of, and ult im at ely, pet it ioner wit hdrew her suit and now she has filed t his writ pet it ion under Art icle 226 of t he Const it ut ion.

9. Learned St at e Counsel subm it s t hat since pet it ioner is a rank t ress- passer over Governm ent land, t herefore, she cannot claim any equit y based on possession, howsoever long t hat m ay be.

10. This Court finds subst ance in t he learned St at e subm ission m ade by Counsel. There is no docum ent wit h t he pet it ioner t o show t hat her possession is aut horised. Learned St at e Counsel right in subm it t ing t hat a t ress- passer over Governm ent land cannot seek prot ect ion, especially when t he land is needed for a public purpose and pet it ioner cannot claim equit y based on possession.

11. I n view of t he aforesaid fact s and reasons, t his Court do not find any scope for int erference in t he m at t er.

12. The writ pet it ion fails and is dism issed. is, accordingly, ( M a n o j K u m a r Ti w a r i , J.)

03.09.2025 Navin NAVEEN CHANDRA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3be23325146e76a0642bdf4943fb9046f487df006da82a131bb4e4403d3c0a15, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=18167EEFB5CA8CFFD421A103819DA875643AF56D653D095C6ED9A86DAAB21C E5, cn=NAVEEN CHANDRA