The State challenged the District Judge's appellate judgment setting aside an eviction order against unauthorised occupants of public premises. Counsel agreed to decide the petitions in terms of this Court's earlier identical judgment; the petitions were accordingly allowed on those same terms.
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.
| SL. No |
Date | Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures |
COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS |
|---|---|---|---|
| W PMS 9 5 5 / 2 0 1 6 W PMS 9 6 1 / 2 0 1 6 W PMS 9 6 2 / 2 0 1 6 W PMS 9 6 3 / 2 0 1 6 Hon’ble Man oj Ku m ar Tiw ar i, A.C.J. |
|||
| Mr. Yogesh Chandra Tiwari and Mr. Rajesh Sharma, Standing Counsel, for the State/ petitioner. |
|||
| Mr. Mukesh Singh Rawat, Advocate, for the respondent. (2) Since identical issue is involved in all these writ petitions, these are being decided by this common order. |
|||
| (3) State has filed these writ petitions challenging the judgment rendered by District Judge, Chamoli in appeal under Section 9 of U.P. Public Prem ises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972. By the impugned judgment, appeal filed by the respondent was allowed and the eviction order, passed by the Prescribed Authority, was set aside. (4) Learned Counsel for the parties are unanimous on the point that identical issue, under the aforesaid Act and in respect of the same district, was decided by this Court vide judgment dated 7.12.2023, passed in Writ Petition (M/ S) 2574 of 2015 and other connected writ petitions. Para 7 of the said judgment is extracted below: |
|||
| “Accordingly, the writ petitions |
| are allowed and the impugned judgment |
|---|
| is set aside. The Appeal filed by |
| respondent under Section 9 of the aforesaid Act shall stand restored to the file of District Judge, who shall decide the Appeal afresh, as per law, expeditiously. It shall be open to respondent to produce on record any documents, he has, for supporting his claim regarding right, title |
| and interest over the property in question.” (5) Learned Counsel for the parties submitted that these writ petitions may also be decided in terms of the judgment dated 7.12.2023, passed in Writ Petition (M/ S) 2574 of 2015. |
| (6) In such view of the matter, these writ petitions are also decided in terms of the judgment dated 7.12.2023, passed in Writ Petition (M/ S) 2574 of 2015. ( Man oj Ku m ar Tiw ar i, A.C.J.) 1 0 .1 2 .2 0 2 4 Pr |
1 issue framed by the court
Should these writ petitions challenging the District Judge's appellate order under Section 9 of the U.P. Public Premises Act be decided in terms of the Court's earlier judgment dated 7.12.2023?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2574 of 2015 and connected writ petitionsFollowed¶6
judgment dated 7.12.2023, passed in Writ Petition (M/S) 2574 of 2015
1 provisions across 1 enactments
State
Respondent (unnamed occupant)
Manoj Kumar Tiwari
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
