Second Appeal is Not a Forum for Rehearing or Reassessment of Evidence: Andhra Pradesh High Court Dismisses Partition Suit Appeal Failure of Justice Must Be Proved, Not Assumed: Calcutta High Court Upholds Murder Conviction Despite Charge Framing Lapse Bail is the Rule, Refusal is an Exception – Right to Liberty Cannot Be Ignored: Delhi High Court Grants Bail to Ivory Coast National in NDPS Case Courts Must Adopt a Justice-Oriented Approach in Matrimonial Cases: Gauhati High Court Condones Delay in Family Court Appeal FIR Quashing | Breath Analyzer Test Alone Cannot Prove Alcohol Consumption: Patna High Court Quashes FIR Under Bihar Prohibition Law Unregistered Writing Cannot Confer Ownership: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Second Appeal in Partition Dispute Allegations of Stalking and Criminal Intimidation Must Be Tested at Trial: Gujarat High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Bombay High Court Quashes Criminal Case Against Nestlé Officials Over Maggi Noodles Controversy No Shortcuts in NDPS Investigations – J&K High Court Rebukes Casual Approach of Investigating Officers Sessions Court Cannot Order Re-Investigation: Allahabad High Court Quashes Direction Against Jaypee Hospital If Official Witnesses Are Reliable, Independent Corroboration Is Not a Must:  Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds NDPS Conviction No Service Tax Can Be Levied on Sale of Lottery Tickets: Supreme Court Rules That Lottery Distributors Are Not Agents Courts Cannot Be Silent Spectators When Justice Is Denied Due to Procedural Errors:  Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Recall of Bail Rejection Order Section 27 of the Evidence Act Requires Independent Corroboration—Mere Claims by Police Are Not Enough: Supreme Court on Flawed Investigation Confession to Police Is No Confession in Law: Supreme Court Acquits Man, Citing Inadmissibility of Statements Made in Custody Mere 'Last Seen Together' Is Not Enough for Conviction Unless It Forms a Complete Chain of Circumstantial Evidence: Supreme Court Sets Aside Life Sentence in 16-Year-Old Girl’s Murder Failure to Explain Wife’s Death Strengthens Guilt Under Section 106 of Evidence Act" – Supreme Court Restores Conviction in Murder Case Child Witness Testimony Cannot Be Discarded Solely on Grounds of Tutoring: Supreme Court Restores Conviction in Murder Case

Uttarakhand High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


Date: 17th May 2023

In a recent judgment delivered on 17th May 2023, the Uttarakhand High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the eviction notification issued by the Indian Railways. The petition, filed by Anchal Kumar Paswan and others, sought to challenge the notification which directed unauthorized occupants of railway land to vacate within ten days, failing which the Railways would resort to forceful eviction and recover the expenses from the encroachers.

The petitioners, who claimed to be residing in an area known as ‘Nagina Basti,’ argued that the land in question housed primary schools and other facilities provided by the state. They also possessed voter ID cards and other identification documents. However, the court noted that the petitioners did not have any legal title or right to the occupied land and were essentially rank trespassers.

The court emphasized the principle that a person seeking discretionary relief must come with clean hands. It stated that the court cannot protect or advance an illegality and highlighted that the petitioners had no legitimate claim over the government property they were occupying. The court further noted that the concept of adverse possession, which allows for the acquisition of ownership through long and uninterrupted possession, does not apply to public land.

Citing previous judgments, the court reiterated that adverse possession can only be claimed over private land where identified individuals have personal interests. In the present case, as the occupied land was public land, the public at large retained the right to use it for public purposes, and public functionaries had a duty to protect public assets. The court stated that inaction on the part of public functionaries does not negate the public’s right over public property.

Based on these grounds, the court dismissed the petition and refused to grant any relief to the petitioners. The stay application filed by the petitioners was also disposed of. The court’s decision reaffirms the principle that unauthorized occupants of government land cannot expect protection or support from the court.

Decided on: 17.05.2023

Anchal Kumar Paswan & others vs Union of India & others

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/ANCHAL-VS-UOI-17-MAY-UK-HC.pdf"]

Similar News