IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 209 of 2002 (M/B) Smt. Kamla Devi, W/o Sri Darshan Singh, Pradhan, Gram Panchayat Sauf, Patti Gongarh, Tehsil Ghansali, District Tehri Garhwal. .......... Petitioner Versus 1. State of Uttaranchal, through Collector, New Tehri, District Tehri Garhwal. 2. Prescribed Authority, Pratap Nagar, District Tehri Garhwal. 3. Jabar Singh s/o Bag Singh 4. Rukam Singh s/o Bag Singh 5. Kabool Singh s/o Bag Singh 6. Dharam Singh s/o Nain Singh Respondents Nos. 3 to 6 R/o Village Sauf, Patti Gongarh, Tehsil Ghanshali, District Tehri Garhwal. ........... Respondents ............ Rakesh Thapaliyal, Advocate for the petitioner. Sri N.C.Gupta, Standing counsel for respondent no.1. None for respondents 2 to 6. JUDGMENT Coram: Hon. Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Hon. Prafulla, C. Pant, J. RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. (Oral) Sri Rakesh Thapaliyal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri N.C. Gupta, learned Standing counsel for respondent no.1. None for respondents 2 to 6. They are heard. 2. Petitioner Smt. Kamla Devi has filed this petition for the following reliefs: “i) issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing to the respondent no. 1 and 2 to take proper action for eviction of the respondent no. 3 to 6 from the land entered in Khata-Khatauni no. 210 in the name of government. 2 ii) issue any suitable writ which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper on the basis of the facts and circumstances of the case. iii) award the cost of the petition to the petitioner.” 3. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent no. 1, para 3 reads as under: “3. A That before giving parawise reply to the writ petition, it is pertinent to mention some relevant facts to set forth the controversy in a correct perspective. The relevant facts in brief are that a proceeding for eviction of respondent no. 3 to 6 was initiated under Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised occupants) Act, 1972 and an eviction case no. 33/95 State Vs Jabar Singh and others was registered. In the said case, an eviction order was passed on 17.06.1996 holding that the occupation of the respondent no. 3 to 6 was unauthorized within the meaning of the said Act. Against the order dated 17.06.1996, a miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 21 of 1996 was preferred by the respondent no. 3 to 6, which was dismissed by the learned District Judge, Tehri Garhwal vide its order dated 10.08.1999. While dismissing the appeal, the learned District Judge taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case directed that if the respondent no. 3 to 6 move an application for regularisation of their possession to the appropriate authority within a period of one month, their eviction shall not be done till the disposal of the application for regularisation. The relevant part of the order of the District Judge containing the aforesaid direction, is reproduced below for ready reference: “The appeal is hereby dismissed with the direction that if the appellants move application for regularisation before the appropriate authority within a month from today, this order of eviction shall not be enforced against them till the disposal of their application for regularisation. New Tehri Sd/- K.P.Nigam August 10, 1999 District Judge.” B. That the respondents 3 to 6 moved an application for regularisation of their possession on 23.8.99 within one month of the date of the order passed by the learned District Judge. The said application is still pending and as such in the terms of the order passed by District Judge, the respondents 3 to 6 are not being evicted on 3 account of the pendency of the application for regularisation. A true copy of the application dated 23.8.99 is annexed herewith and is marked as Annexure no. C A.1 to this counter affidavit. In view of the above, the present writ petition, in which a writ of mandamus has been sought for to take action for eviction of respondents 3 to 6 is not legally maintainable. It appears that the present writ petition has been filed on the conception that the respondents no. 3 to 6 have not filed any application of regularisation. The writ petition is, therefore liable to be dismissed.” 4. As the application filed by respondents 3 to 6 for regularisation is stated to be pending in the counter affidavit filed on 06.06.2003 and there is no positive material before us to indicate that the said application has been decided by the authorities in the meantime, we deem it proper to direct the authorities concerned to decide the application filed by respondents 3 to 6 in accordance with law, if not already decided, within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. 5. With the above direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) (Rajeev Gupta, C.J.) 06.05.2006 06.05.2006 A