SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPMS/3655/2024 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Mr. Piyush Garg, Advocate for the petitioner. 2. Mr. Ganesh Dutt Kandpal, Deputy Advocate General for the State of Uttarakhand / respondent nos. 1 & 2. 3. Mr. Bhupendra Singh Bisht, Advocate for respondent no. 3. 4. By means of this writ petition, petitioner has sought the following reliefs:- “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 pending freehold application of the petitioner as expeditiously as possible” 5. According to the petitioner, her husband was permitted to raise construction over a piece of land, above the retaining wall of balianala near Nainital town and construction was raised upon such land by her husband soon thereafter. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that petitioner’s husband was a Group-D employee in Jal Nigam. Petitioner is aggrieved by two notices, issued by Executive Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad Nainital. The first one was issued on 22.12.2023 and the second one was issued on 30.09.2024. By these notices, petitioner was asked to vacate the land in question, by holding that she is in unauthorised occupation over such land, which belongs to the State Government. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the year 1985, petitioner’s husband, who belonged to poor strata of society, was having difficulty in finding a residential accommodation, therefore he made representation to the Chief Minister and the Chief Minister wrote a letter dated 07.07.1985 to the District Magistrate to look into the grievance raised by him, and on the instructions issued by the District Magistrate, the Executive Officer, Nagar Palika orally permitted petitioner’s husband to raise construction over the land in question. He thus submits that after nearly 40 years, of petitioner’s possession over the land in question, she cannot be asked to vacate the land, which is a little more than 80 sqr. mtr. 8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for Nagar Palika Parishad submits that there is no letter or order issued by any authority permitting the petitioner or her husband to raise construction over the land in question. He further submits that the land belongs to the State Government and status of the petitioner is that of an unauthorised occupant. He further submits that the land in question is needed for construction of multilevel parking, for which State Government has also released fund, however, due to petitioner’s unauthorised occupation over the land in question, the construction work could not commence. He further submits that petitioner earlier filed a suit for permanent injunction and when learned Trial Court refused to grant ex- parte temporary injunction in her favour, then she filed a writ petition before this Court, which was disposed of, and ultimately, petitioner withdrew her suit and now she has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. 9. Learned State Counsel submits that since petitioner is a rank tress-passer over Government land, therefore, she cannot claim any equity based on possession, howsoever long that may be. 10. This Court finds substance in the submission made by learned State Counsel. There is no document with the petitioner to show that her possession is authorised. Learned State Counsel is right in submitting that a tress-passer over Government land cannot seek protection, especially when the land is needed for a public purpose and petitioner cannot claim equity based on possession. 11. In view of the aforesaid facts and reasons, this Court do not find any scope for interference in the matter. 12. The writ petition is, accordingly, fails and is dismissed. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 03.09.2025 Navin NAVEEN CHANDRA Digitally signed by 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 Date: 2025.09.04 17:09:33 +05'30'