IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL (1) Writ Petition No.1159 of 2009 (M/S) Baladutt ……….. Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others. ……… Respondents (2) Writ Petition No.1160 of 2009 (M/S) Indradev Pandey ……….. Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others. ……… Respondents (3) Writ Petition No.1166 of 2009 (M/S) Prem Singh ……….. Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others. ……… Respondents (4) Writ Petition No.1167 of 2009 (M/S) Pooran Chandra ……….. Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others. ……… Respondents 2 AND (5) Writ Petition No.1168 of 2009 (M/S) Dharmanand ……….. Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others. ……… Respondents Sri R.S. Sammal Advocate present for the petitioners. Sri N.P. Sah, learned Standing Counsel and Sri Sudhir Singh, learned brief holder for the State/respondents. Date: July 24, 2009 Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. During the course of hearing learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to file supplementary affidavits. He is permitted to file the supplementary affidavits. 2. Supplementary affidavits filed in Writ Petition (M/S) Nos. 1159/2009, 1160/2009, 1167 / 2009 & 1168/2009 be taken on record. 3. Since the facts and the controversy involved in all these five writ petitions are similar and the orders impugned in all these writ petitions are same (though they have been passed on different dates by the Prescribed Authority as well as by appellate court), for the sake of convenience, all these writ petitions are being disposed of at the admission stage by this common order. 4. By means of these writ petitions, the petitioners have sought writ in the nature of certiorari 3 quashing the impugned notice issued by the Prescribed Authority in each case as well as the judgment and order passed by the District Judge, Champawat in appeal filed against each case. The petitioners also sought writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to evict them from their temporary sheds which are being used by them temporarily in Mela of Purnagiri Temple. 5. Brief facts, giving rise to these writ petitions, are that on the challani report of forest officials, the Prescribed Authority/Deputy Collector, Lohaghat (District-Champawat) initiated proceedings under Section 4/5 of the Uttar Pradesh Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and issued notices to the petitioners under Section 4 (1) of the Act on the ground that the petitioners entered into unauthorised occupation without title in the State land belonging to the Forest Department and the land is a reserved forest of Boom Range, Purnagiri Compartment. Each petitioner has filed objection against the notice before the Prescribed Authority stating that they used the land temporarily only for two months by erecting temporary shed by putting Tirpal and they have not made any construction. The concerned Zila Panchayat is realising Rs. 300/- per month as licence fee for installing the shop during the Mela. The Prescribed Authority passed the order for eviction on the ground that the petitioner, in each case, failed to establish his title and also no documentary proof has been filed by them. The Prescribed Authority passed order for eviction of the petitioners from the land described in 4 the notice issued to them. Aggrieved by the orders of the Prescribed Authority, the petitioners have preferred appeals before the District Judge. After hearing the partiers, the District Judge has affirmed the finding of the Prescribed Authority on the ground that the Forest Department proved the fact that the land in question belonged to the State and the petitioners failed to prove their title before the Prescribed Authority. Further aggrieved by the orders passed by District Judge in appeal, the petitioners have come up with these writ petitions. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders. This fact is not disputed by the petitioners that the disputed land belonged to the State Government. The only objection which was raised by the petitioners before the Prescribed Authority is that they have erected temporary shed by putting Tirpal and the land is being used during the Mela only. According to them, ‘Prasad’ are being sold during the Mela with the permission of Zila Panchayat. 7. So far as the permission of Zila Panchayat is concerned, it might be for selling the Prasad as per bye-laws of the concerning Zila Panchayat. This is also not the case of the petitioners that the land belonged to Zila Panchayat and the State is not the owner of the land in dispute. Since the land belonged to the State Government and no such permission was given by the State Government to the petitioners to put temporary or permanent shed on the disputed land, only by realizing tax by Zila Panchayat from 5 them, no right accrues to the petitioners. The findings recorded by the District Judge are finding of fact. The orders passed by Prescribed Authority as well as by the District Judge in appeals do not suffer any manifest error of law. I find no perversity or irregularity in the impugned orders in each writ petition. 8. All these writ petitions are devoid of merits and are dismissed in limine. The orders impugned in each writ petition are affirmed. (Stay application filed in each writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.) (B.S.Verma,J.) 24.07.2009 P.Singh