Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 8909 (UTT)

MAHA SINGH v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND THROUGH DISTRICT MAGISTRATE ALMORA

WPMS/3006/2016 · 2026-07-24

Manoj Kumar Tiwari

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

UKHC010042782016 2026:UHC:6361 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPMS/3006/2016 Maha Singh --Petitioner Versus State Of Uttarakhand Through District Magistrate Almora and others --Respondents Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. There is no representation for the petitioner. 2. Mr. Pan Singh Bisht, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand. 3. Proceedings under U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972 were initiated against petitioner by issuing a notice under Section 4. 4. In his reply, petitioner contended that he is in possession over the land in question since the time of his grandfather, however, there was no reference to any document of title in the reply. 5. Prescribed Authority passed order of eviction against petitioner, which was challenged by him in an appeal under Section 9 of the Act. The Appellate Authority i.e. Additional District Judge, Almora dismissed the appeal, vide judgment dated 03.09.2016, by holding that the notice was duly issued under Section 4(1) of the aforesaid Act; sufficient description of the land in question was given in the notice and since petitioner is UKHC010042782016 2026:UHC:6361 occupying Government land without any authority of law, therefore, Prescribed Authority was justified in passing eviction order. 6. Petitioner has challenged the order passed by Prescribed Authority as affirmed by Appellate Authority in this writ petition, however, upon perusal of the judgments passed by learned Courts below and also the reply submitted by petitioner to the notice issued to him, this Court do not find any scope for interference. Petitioner’s possession over the land in question was without any authority of law. It is also not in dispute that land occupied by petitioner was Government land. Thus, the Courts below were justified in passing the order of eviction against petitioner. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 24.07.2026 Navin