Section 164 CrPC Statement Recorded Without Procedural Safeguards Or 'Cooling-Off' Period Not A Valid Confession: Jharkhand High Court Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Investigation Is At A Nascent Stage If Custodial Interrogation Is Not Indispensable: Telangana High Court Actual Pay Drawn During Last 10 Months Must Be Basis For Pension Calculation, Regardless Of Notional Pay In Parent Bank: Punjab & Haryana High Court Limitation For Redemption Of Usufructuary Mortgage Starts Only When Mortgage Money Is Paid Or Tendered: Allahabad High Court Exclusion Of Natural Heir From Will Not A Suspicious Circumstance If Execution Is Duly Proved: Punjab & Haryana High Court Right To Travel Abroad Is A Basic Human Right; Permission Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Visit Is For 'Social Or Celebratory' Purpose: Andhra Pradesh High Court Citizen Cannot Be Externed Merely For Raising Grievances Against Government Decisions: Bombay High Court Lack Of Opportunity To Cross-Examine Partition Commissioner Does Not Vitiate Final Decree; Report Is Part Of Record: Calcutta High Court Section 27 Evidence Act Recoveries Inadmissible If Police Had Prior Knowledge Of Location Before Recording Disclosure: Delhi High Court Foreigners Act | Burden Of Proof To Establish Citizenship Solely On Proceedee, Never Shifts; Prescription For Parkinson's No Proof Of Mental Illness To Explain Testimony Contradictions: Gauhati High Court Trial Court Erred In Abating Suit While Application To Bring Legal Heirs On Record Was Pending: Gujarat High Court Places Of Worship Act 1991 Not A Shield Against Land Acquisition By State For Public Purpose: Allahabad High Court Unregistered Partition Deed Creating New Rights In Immovable Property Inadmissible In Evidence: Himachal Pradesh High Court Illiteracy No Excuse For Filing False Income Tax Returns, Court Must Presume Culpable Mental State Under Section 278E: Jharkhand High Court Trial Court Must Consider Convenience Of Family & Accused's Right To Assist Counsel While Deciding Jail Shifting Applications: J&K High Court Investigation Substantially Complete, Offence Carries Max 7 Years Jail: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail To Police Officers In Corruption Case Buyer's Knowledge Of Title Defect Doesn't Extinguish Statutory Warranty Of Title Unless Sale Deed Specifically Excludes It: Kerala High Court Madras High Court Sets Aside Appointment Of PAs To Judges, Says Relaxation Of Qualifications Via Circular Violates Article 14 BNSS | Mere Allegation Of Calling Deceased To Spot Not Sufficient To Deny Bail To Woman If Charge Sheet Filed: Orissa High Court Amendment To Rectify Property Description In Agreement To Sell Can Be Allowed At Any Stage Of Specific Performance Suit: Delhi High Court NDPS | Confession Before Police Cannot Be Sole Basis For Prosecution: Telangana High Court Grants Bail No Judicial Sanctity For Adulterous Relationships: J&K High Court Refuses To Quash Abduction FIR Involving Married Woman Habitual Offender Accused Of Brutal Murder Of SC Community Member Denied Bail: Kerala High Court Prosecution Fails To Prove Murder Charge As Recovery Witnesses Turn Hostile: Uttarakhand High Court Acquits Man Acquittal In Criminal Case Based On Benefit Of Doubt Does Not Automatically Absolve Employee From Disciplinary Liability: Madhya Pradesh High Court

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"]

Latest Legal News