2025:UHC:1073 UHIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI UWrit Petition (M/S) No. 160 of 2025 U17UPUth UPU February, 2025 Gainda Lal --Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and Another --Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. Yogesh Pandey and Mr. D.K. Joshi, learned counsels for the petitioner Mr. Yogesh Chandra Tiwari, learned Standing Counsel for the State ---------------------------------------------------------------------- UJUDGMENT 1. Proceedings under U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1972, were initiated against petitioner by issuing a notice under Section 4(1) thereof. Petitioner gave reply to the notice. After hearing both sides, learned Prescribed Authority passed eviction order against petitioner on 31.01.2023. 2. Petitioner challenged eviction order in an Appeal filed under Section 9 of said Act. His Appeal was partly allowed to the extent that damage imposed by learned Prescribed Authority, upon petitioner, was waived, however, eviction order was maintained. Thus, feeling aggrieved, petitioner has filed this writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that impugned judgment and order, passed by learned Prescribed Authority, as affirmed by Appellate Authority, are unsustainable in the eyes of law as both learned Courts below overlooked the provisions contained in Kumaun Nayabad and Waste Lands Act, 1948, which permits every tenure-holder to extend his cultivation over adjoining public land and petitioner had exercised his right available under the said Act. 1 2025:UHC:1073 4. He further submits that notice under Section 4(1) issued to petitioner is undated, therefore notice is bad, consequently, entire proceedings are vitiated because of defective notice. He further submits that Gram Sabha had passed a resolution that Gram Sabha will have no objection if petitioner is permitted to enjoy fruits of land in question, which he was cultivating since long. 5. Learned State counsel, however, submits that Kumaun Nayabad and Waste Lands Act, 1948 do not support the case of petitioner as neither his name nor name of his forefather is recorded as tenure holder in revenue records regarding land in question. He submits that the said Act was repealed in 1976 and petitioner failed to produce any evidence before learned Courts below that he was cultivating the land in question before 1976, when aforesaid Act was in force. 6. He further submits that notice will not become defective, merely because date of issuance is not indicated; as per provision contained in Section 4(2)(b) of U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1972, reply to the notice has to be given within ten days from its receipt and petitioner has not denied that notice was not served upon him, therefore, even if the date of issuance is not mentioned in the notice, then also, petitioner could have given reply within the time, stipulated in the statute and no prejudice is caused to him due to not mentioning of date in the notice. 7. He further submits that petitioner did file his reply and neither in his reply nor during argument before learned Prescribed Authority, he raised this plea that notice was undated. 2 2025:UHC:1073 8. Regarding contention made by Mr. Yogesh Pandey, learned counsel appearing for petitioner that petitioner’s forefathers are cultivating the land in question since last several decades, learned State Counsel submits that petitioner could not lead any evidence before Courts below in support of his claim of long continuous possession since prior to repeal of Kumaun Nayabad and Waste Lands Act, 1948. 9. He submits that before this Court also, petitioner has not produced any evidence to show that his possession over the land in question is prior to repeal of the Kumaun Nayabad and Waste Lands Act. Thus, he submits that both the Courts below have returned categorical finding of facts, which is based on evidence on record, therefore, any interference in the matter, would be unwarranted. 10. This Court finds substance in the submission made by learned State Counsel. Since petitioner has not been able to prove his case that in exercise of right under Kumaun Nayabad and Waste Lands Act, 1948 petitioner extended his cultivation, therefore benefit of said Act, cannot be given to him. His name is not shown as tenure holder in any record maintained by Revenue Department. 11. The contention that proceedings are vitiated because of defective notice also cannot be sustained as notice was duly served on petitioner and petitioner did submit reply to the notice. No prejudice is caused to him on this score. Thus, no fault can be found in the impugned judgment and orders and there is no scope for interference. 3 2025:UHC:1073 12. Learned counsel for petitioner then submits that petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste community and he is entitled to certain benefits under Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. He submits that petitioner has applied for regularization of his possession over the land in question and his application is pending consideration before Collector, Tehri Garhwal. Thus, he submits that Collector, Tehri Garhwal, be directed to consider the application for regularization, submitted by petitioner. 13. Learned State Counsel, however, submits that there is nothing on record to show that petitioner has made any application and date of making application, if any, is also not indicated. Thus he submits that petitioner can be permitted to move an application to the competent authority. 14. Accordingly, Writ Petition is disposed of by permitting petitioner to make application for regularization of his possession over the land in question, to competent authority/District Collector, Tehri Garhwal. If petitioner makes such application within two weeks from today, decision thereupon shall be taken within six months thereafter. Till decision is taken on petitioner’s application, he shall not be dispossessed from the land in question. If he fails to make application within two weeks, he shall not be entitled to the protection given by this order. _________________________________ MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J. Dt: 17Pth P February, 2025 Mahinder 4 2025:UHC:1073 5