2025:UHC:536 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. 1885of 2024 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Mohd. Matlub, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Mr. Yogesh Chand Tiwari and Mr. Rajesh Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand / respondents. 3. Proceedings under Section 4 (1) of U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972 was initiated against petitioner, which resulted in passing of eviction order against him, on 26.07.2012. Petitioner challenged the eviction order in an Appeal under Section 9 of the aforesaid Act. His appeal has been dismissed by learned District Judge, Chamoli, vide judgment dated 31.05.2024. Thus, feeling aggrieved, petitioner has approached this Court, challenging the order passed by Prescribed Authority, as affirmed by Appellate Authority. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that Prescribed Authority has not considered the material on record, which proves that the petitioner’s possession over the land in question dates back to the year 1980; therefore, petitioner could not have been evicted therefrom. He further submits that the land belongs to Gram Sabha, therefore, provision of the 2025:UHC:536 aforesaid Act cannot be invoked for seeking his eviction. 5. Learned State Counsel, per contra submits that the land in question is non Z.A. land, therefore, it is covered under U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972. Learned State Counsel further submits that petitioner has admitted in his deposition made before the Prescribed Authority during cross examination that he is in unauthorised occupation over the land in question. He further submits that petitioner has not produced any evidence in support of his title, and possession howsoever long over public land, will not create any right. 6. I have gone through the judgment and orders passed by Prescribed Authority and the Appellate Authority. Both the courts below have considered and discussed entire material on record and have recorded a finding that petitioner is in unauthorised occupation over the land in question, which is public land. Before the learned Courts below, petitioner has not asserted his claim for title and his claim was based only on possession. 7. Law is well settled that adverse possession cannot be claimed in respect of a public land. Petitioner has not brought any document on record to show that he had any semblance of right, title or interest over the land in question. Thus, the only logical conclusion is that he would be in 2025:UHC:536 unauthorised occupation over the Government land. Thus, there is no scope for interference with the impugned judgment. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner then submits that petitioner is a landless labourer and as per the Government Policy, he is entitled to regularisation of unauthorised occupation. He refers to some Government Orders in support of this contention. 9. In such view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of by permitting petitioner to make application for regularising his occupation over the land in question to the District Magistrate, Chamoli. If petitioner makes such application, District Magistrate shall look into the matter and take decision within four months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. For a period of four months or till decision on petitioner’s application, whichever is earlier, status quo shall be maintained. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, .J.) 10.01.2025 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=3be23325146e76a0642bdf4943fb9046f487df006da82a 131bb4e4403d3c0a15, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=18167EEFB5CA8CFFD421A103819DA875643AF56 D653D095C6ED9A86DAAB21CE5, cn=NAVEEN CHANDRA Date: 2025.01.11 13:06:30 +05'30'