Rules of the Game Were Never Changed: Delhi High Court Upholds CSIR’s Power to Prescribe Minimum Threshold in CASE-2023 Resignation Does Not Forfeit Earned Pension: Calcutta High Court Declares Company Superannuation Benefit as ‘Wages’ Under Law Fraud Vitiates Everything—Stranger Can File Independent Suit Against Compromise Decree: Bombay High Court Refuses to Reject 49-Year-Old Challenge at Threshold Article 21-A Cannot Be Held Hostage to Transfer Preferences: Allahabad High Court Upholds Teacher Redeployment to Enforce Pupil–Teacher Ratio Arbitrator Cannot Rewrite Contract Or Travel Beyond Pleadings: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes ₹5.18 Crore Award Director’ in GeM Clause 29 Does Not Mean ‘Independent Director’: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Technical Disqualification Section 25(3) Is Sacrosanct – Removal of a Trademark Cannot Rest on a Defective Notice: Delhi High Court Not Every Broken Promise Is Rape: Delhi High Court Draws Clear Line Between ‘Suspicion’ and ‘Grave Suspicion’ in False Promise to Marry Case Section 37 Is Not A Second Appeal On Merits: Delhi High Court Refuses To Re-Appreciate Evidence In Challenge To Arbitral Award Recovery After Retirement Is Clearly Impermissible: Bombay High Court Shields Retired Teacher From ₹2.80 Lakh Salary Recovery Paying Tax Does Not Legalise Illegality: Bombay High Court Refuses to Shield Alleged Unauthorized Structure Beneficial Pension Scheme Cannot Be Defeated By Cut-Off Dates: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs EPFO To Follow Sunil Kumar B. Guidelines On Higher Pension Claims

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