SATISH GUPTA Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 05.11.2016 rendered by learned Additional District Judge, Tehri Garhwal in Eviction Appeal No.03 of 2016 as well as judgment and order dated 29.11.2015 rendered by learned Prescribed Authority, Narendra Nagar, Tehri Garhwal in Eviction Case No.22 of 2012 under Sec. 4(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Public Premises Act ).

(2.) The key facts necessary for adjudication to this petition are that Prescribed Authority, Narendra Nagar District Tehri Garhwal had issued a notice to the petitioner under Sec. 4 of the Public Premises Act stating therein that he had occupied the property i.e. Z.A. Khata No.8, Khasra No.864, measuring 0.024 hectares since 1990 unauthorisedly and he had also raised construction. Petitioner filed reply to the notice. Thereafter, learned Prescribed authority passed the eviction order against the petitioner on 29.11.2015 and he was ordered to pay Rs.20,000.00 per annum towards damages from 1990. Petitioner preferred an Eviction Appeal No.02 of 2016 against the order dated 29.11.2015 passed by learned Prescribed Authority, before learned District Judge, Tehri Garhwal. Learned Additional District Judge, Tehri Garhwal has partly allowed the Eviction Appeal vide order dated 05.11.2016 and affirmed the order passed by learned Prescribed authority qua eviction but reduced the damages from Rs.20,000.00 to Rs.600.00 per annum. Hence, the present writ petition.

(3.) Notice was issued to the petitioner under Sec. 4 of the Public Premises Act strictly in accordance with law. The Revenue Sub Inspector also testified before the Prescribed authority. According to him, as per order of Sub Divisional Magistrate dated 28.02.2013, he has visited the spot on 30.03.2013. He has prepared the Map, Khasra, Khatoni and demarcated the land. He supported the challani report on the basis of which the proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. According to him, demarcation was carried out strictly as per law. Petitioner had appeared as witness before learned Prescribed Authority. He testified in his statement that a notarized agreement was executed by him with one Sri Purnanand Joshi S/o Vasvanad on 24.04.1998 with regard to land in question. He has also submitted photo copies relating to the Criminal Case No.461/1990.