2025:UHC:3692 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPMS/1299/2025 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Mr. S.K. Posti, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Ashutosh Posti, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.K. Nailwal, Standing Counsel for the State. 2. Proceedings under Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972 were initiated against petitioner by issuing a notice. Petitioner gave reply to the notice in which he stated that he has made application for grant of lease in respect of the land in question and that application is pending before the Competent Authority. 3. He further contended that as many as 15 persons who applied for lease were granted leasehold rights and out of 15 those persons, one was given lease for constructing Dharamshala. 4. The Prescribed Authority passed eviction order against petitioner on 11.06.2021. Petitioner, thereafter, preferred Appeal under Section 9 of the aforesaid Act, which too has been dismissed by learned District Judge, Chamoli, vide judgment dated 20.03.2025. Challenging the aforesaid judgment and orders, petitioner has approached this Court. 2025:UHC:3692 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since petitioner’s application for grant of lease is pending before the District Magistrate and petitioner was badly affected by earthquake that hit District Chamoli in 1999, therefore, order of eviction passed by Prescribed Authority is unjust and unsustainable. He submits that Appellate Court also overlooked this aspect, therefore, judgment rendered by appellate Court is also liable to be set aside. 6. Learned State Counsel, per contra, submits that the stand taken by petitioner that his application for grant of lease is pending before the competent authority shows that petitioner’s possession over the land in question was unauthorised and he did not have any title over the land. 7. Learned State Counsel submits that so long as the application for lease is not decided in favour of petitioner and lease is not granted, he has no right to occupy public land. 8. This Court finds substance in the submission made by State Counsel. 9. Thus, there is no scope for interference with the impugned order passed by Prescribed Authority, as affirmed by learned District Judge. However, having regard to the fact that petitioner 2025:UHC:3692 was affected by earthquake, which hit Chamoli in 1999 and resulted in substantial damage to the house of the petitioner, I dispose of this writ petition with liberty to petitioner to make fresh application for grant of lease, qua the land in question. 10. If petitioner makes such application within three weeks from today, the District Magistrate concerned shall take decision thereupon, as per law within six months thereafter. 11. For a period of eight months or till decision is taken on petitioner’s application, whoever is earlier, status quo, qua the structure raised by petitioner, shall be maintained. 12. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 08.05.2025 Mahinder/ MAHINDER SINGH Digitally signed by MAHINDER SINGH DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=da6212e6e78d94ed3134842bc6a8d6ca168979ca7b8c2f031a92d1a18b08923c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=AB77B7C5B240908B392BE84F5CDD4C2AF35DC4626D305B1BC9EA4BABA43D2B8F, cn=MAHINDER SINGH Date: 2025.05.09 20:23:08 +05'30'