The petitioner challenged an eviction order under the U.P. Public Premises Act, arguing the land belonged to a Van Panchayat instead of the State. The court held that the revenue record (Khatuni) prevailed over the Van Panchayat minutes and dismissed the petition.
The writ petition was dismissed for lack of merit.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition No. 1333 of 2006 (M/S)
Laxman Singh …...Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand …… Respondent.
Present:
Mr. R.P. Nautiyal, Senior Advocate assisted by Mrs. Sangeeta Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Pankaj Purohit, Deputy Advocate General for the State of Uttarakhand.
Dated: 25th July, 2017
JUDGMENT
Hon’ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.
The proceedings have been initiated by invoking Section 4/5 of U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The basis of the initiation of the proceedings has been the report submitted by the Patwari on 28th April, 2004, wherein, in his report he has submitted that in Village Kimmana and Pathali, the petitioner is in occupation of unauthorized land lying Khata No. 10 and 6 respectively over Khasra No. 1420 and 1772M of Patwari Kshetra Parkandi, Tehsil Ukhimath, District Rudraprayag.
On the basis of the said report, a notice under Section 4/5 of the Act was issued to the petitioner and the same has been decided by the Prescribed Authority by the impugned order dated 6th December, 2005, and on a challenge given by the petitioner to the said order in Appeal under Section 9 of the Act, the same has been dismissed by the orders/judgment dated 24th June, 2006.
The contention of the petitioner is that the inception of the proceedings, based on the report of the Patwari dated
2
28th April, 2008, is illegal, the reason being that according to the petitioner, the land is not a public premise as defined under the Act, but it is rather a land which is vested with the Van Panchayat. In support of his contention, he has drawn attention to this Court, annexure No. 4 to the counter affidavit, which is the excerpts of the meeting of Van Panchayat, as held on 16th February, 2001.
In reply to it, the counsel for the respondent submits that the assertion of Mr. R.P. Nautiyal, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the petitioner, projecting the land belongs to the Van Panchayat, cannot be accepted the reason being that the Khatuni which is annexed with the counter affidavit, shows that the land against which the notices have been issued is the land which is recorded as pasture land, which is a land vested in the State.
To this, the petitioner submits that the Van Panchayat Minutes of Meeting will have precedence over the Khatuni entries. This contention is not acceptable by this Court, the rationale being under the revenue record, Khatuni is a document of title and the person who is tenure holder recorded therein will be held to be an owner under law until and unless the same is challenged and set aside by the Competent Court .
It is not the case of the petitioner that these entries were subject to the judicial scrutiny and they are not in existence as on date. In that view of the matter, merely because a Van Panchayat has held a meeting that in itself will not make the land belonging to the Van Panchayat. Hence, this contention of the petitioner is not acceptable by this Court.
3
If this be so, then it could be inferred from the above and from the document on record in the revenue record that the land stands recorded as State land.
The contention of the petitioner is further not acceptable from the view point that the land belongs to Van Panchayat, the reason being that when the notices were issued under Section 4/5 of the Act, it was necessary for the petitioner that at the stage of inception of the proceedings under the Act, he ought to have taken a stand as to what status he exercises by way of his right over the land in question.
There is nothing on record nor in the pleadings which has been taken by the petitioner to show that he took as a defence that the proceedings were taken because it is a land which is a Van Panchayat land.
The second limb of argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that he is in possession over the land for last 50-55 years. Let us admit this fact. If he contends that he is in possession over the land for last 50-55 years, then he admits his occupation and possession over the land as unauthorized without title. His case is not that he is owner and the land is not a State land. His case is based on a classification whether it is State land or land of Van Panchayat.
As far as the title is concerned that has already been settled above, it is the land vested with the State. If this be so, the length of possession is not creating any bar under the Act nor the Act creates a bar that no action be taken on the premise of length of possession that the persons who occupy land for a longer duration are not immune to the proceedings under the Act.
4
No other ground has been pressed by the petitioner. In view of the above, this Court finds that there is no legal and apparent anomaly committed by the Court’s below, while passing the impugned orders.
The writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed.
(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.)
25.07.2017
Shiv
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a Van Panchayat meeting resolving land ownership can override the revenue record (Khatuni) entered in the State's name.
Whether the length of possession (50-55 years) provides a defense against proceedings under the U.P. Public Premises Act for unauthorized occupation of State land.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Laxman Singh
State of Uttarakhand
Sharad Kumar Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
