DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT METHODIST CHURCH NAINITAL v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
WPMS/711/2025 · 2025-03-21
Manoj Kumar Tiwari
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 3380 (UTT) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 3380 (UTT) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
2025:UHC:2062 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS
WPMS No. 711 of 2025 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J
1. Mr. Siddhartha Sah, learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. Mr. Yogesh Chandra Tewari, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand.
3. Proceedings under U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972 were initiated against respondent no. 3 by issuing a notice under Section 4(1) of the aforesaid Act. Those proceedings are on.
4. Petitioner moved an application seeking his impleadment in the summary eviction proceedings by contending that he is the owner of the property in question. Learned Prescribed Authority rejected the application made by the petitioner vide order dated 31.01.2025. Thus, feeling aggrieved, petitioner has approached this Court.
5. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order dated
31.01.2025. The eviction proceedings under the aforesaid Act are summary in nature; whether Methodist Church in Southern Asia / Methodist Episcopal Church is the owner of the land in question, is not to be decided in these proceedings; the issue to be decided in these proceedings, is as to whether respondent no. 3 is in unauthorised occupation over public land or not. Anyone, who claims to be the owner of the land in question, is always at liberty to approach a Civil Court or any other
2025:UHC:2062 Competent Court of Law for declaration of his rights or for other appropriate relief. Thus, there is no scope of interference.
6. This Court finds substance in the submission made by learned State Counsel that petitioner appears to be acting in collusion with respondent no. 3, and with a view to delay the eviction proceedings, petitioner filed impleadment application. The writ petition is an example of abuse of process of law, therefore, the same is dismissed with cost of ₹10,000/-, to be deposited with Advocate’s Welfare Fund maintained by Uttarakhand High Court Bar Association, within two weeks from today, failing which it shall be recoverable through District Collector, Nainital.
(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J)
21.03.2025 Aswal
2025:UHC:2062