PUSHPA DEVI Vs. COMMISSIONER GARHWAL MANDAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Pankaj Purohit, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. B.P.S. Mer, learned Brief Holder appearing for the State of Uttarakhand and, with their consent, the Special Appeal is disposed of at the stage of admission.

(2.) The appellant herein filed Writ Petition (M/S) No.3602 of 2019 questioning the order of the District Magistrate, Chamoli dated 02.01.2019 and the order of the Commissioner, Garhwal Mandal dated 19.10.2019. On the Writ Petition being dismissed by the order under appeal, she has invoked the appellate jurisdiction of this Court.

(3.) Facts, to the limited extent necessary, are that the appellant-writ petitioner belongs to the Scheduled Castes, and her income falls well below the poverty line. The father-in-law of the appellant-writ petitioner had occupied Government land of an extent of 0.010 hec. On the demise of the appellant-writ petitioner's father-in-law, and since the subject land was under the occupation of the appellant-writ petitioner's husband, eviction proceedings were initiated against him under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, by order dated 24.09.2015, directed eviction of the appellant-writ petitioner's husband. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant-writ petitioner's husband preferred an appeal to the District Judge who, by order dated 31.10.2017, dismissed the appeal. The appellant-writ petitioner's husband, thereafter, filed Writ Petition (M/S) No.3230 of 2017 and this Court, in its order dated 20.12.2017, observed that the orders impugned in the Writ Petition had held the status of the petitioner to be an unauthorized occupant of public land, which was also admitted by the writ petitioner; he had filed a representation claiming regularization of his possession under Government Orders without disturbing the findings recorded by the lower courts under the Public Premises Act; and there were Government Orders under which a person, belonging to an oppressed class, is required to be given the benefit of regularization of possession. The District Magistrate, Chamoli was directed to consider his representation in the light of the prevalent Government Orders, and take a decision thereupon. In the light of the orders passed by this Court, in Writ Petition (M/S) No.3230 of 2017 dated 20.12.2017, the appellant-writ petitioner's husband submitted a representation to the District Magistrate, Chamoli who, by his order dated 02.01.2019, rejected the same holding that the land, in the occupation of the appellant-writ petitioner's husband, was classified as 'forest', and could not be alienated.