Anita Negi vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another

S.K. Mishra, J

Heard Mr. B.M. Pingal, the learned counsel appearing to the petitioner, Mr. Suyash Pant, Standing Counsel.

In this writ application, the petitioner has prayed this court to issue writ of certiorari and set-aside the judgment and order dated 27.09.2021 passed by the learned Prescribed Authority/Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Karnprayag, District Chamoli in Case No. 01 of 2015-16 "State of Uttarakhand and another Vs. Anita" and the order dated 14.09.2021 passed by the Additional District Judge, Karnprayag, District Chamoli in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 01 of 2021 confirming the order passed by the Prescribed Authority.

The learned counsel for the petitioner does not refuse that the petitioner has encroached the government land which lies by the side of National Highway leading from Kedarnath to Badrinath. The only contention that has been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that as per the annexure 3 of the writ application (page no. 32) issued on 14.12.2015 a total of land measuring 36 Sq. meter is said to have been in illegal and unauthorized occupation of the petitioner.

However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when the final order was passed by the Authorized Officer, a total area of land including construction measuring 385 Sq.Meters is found to be unauthorized and illegal. The relevant extract of the order passed by the Prescribed Authority dated 27.09.2018 reads as under:-

(अतः अवैध आबादकार श्रीमती अनीता नेगी पत्नी श्री राजपाल सिंह नेगी निवासी प्रेमनगर कर्णप्रयाग, तहसील कर्णप्रयाग हाल वॉर्ड सदस्य नगर पंचायत कर्णप्रयाग द्वारा NZA खतौनी खाता संख्या 56 खसरा नम्बर 19 कुल रकबा 1.132 हे0 NZA भूमि उत्तराखण्ड सरकार श्रेणी 9(3)ख (2) झाड़ी में राष्ट्रीय राजमार्ग के हिल साईड में 13 कमरों वाला तीन मंजिला मकान की नाप जोख करने पर भू-तल में 17-20x5-70 =98.04 वर्ग मी0 में 04 दुकानें, प्रथम तल पर 21.10x5.50 =116.05 वर्ग मी0 में 05 दुकानें व द्वितीय तल पर 21.10x8.10 = 170.91 वर्ग मी0 04 आवासीय कमरे, कुल 385 वर्ग मी0 0.039 हे0)

The learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the judgment dated 30.07.2010 passed by this Court in the case of Nagar Palika Parishad, Haridwar through its Executive Officer Vs. District and Sessions Judge, Haridwar and another (Writ Petition No. 1005 (MS) of 2003) contends that if a notice has not specified the measure of land that has been encroached then a final order asking the petitioner to vacate a larger area of land will itself vitiate the proceedings.

He also relied upon a reported case of Bikarama Vs. Fourth Additional District Judge, Varanasi and others reported in 1984 SCC Online Allahabad 346, where a similar grievance has been taken. However, the facts of that case are different. In this case, a show cause notice was issued on 14.12.2015. At that time on verification, it was found that the petitioner was in unauthorized and illegal occupation of the Government land and has raised six pillars. The impugned judgment further reveals that:-

From the careful reading of these facts of the case, which are not disputed, it is apparent that when the eviction proceeding was initiated, the petitioner was going on with construction of 12 roomed, 3 storey building just by the side of the National Highway leading from Kedarnath to Badrinath at Karnprayag in District Chamoli. It is also not disputed that the said piece of land and the National Highway going through it is very sensitive ecologically and a slight deviation in the balance may cause disaster and heavy loss to human lives and properties. It is also apparent that even after receiving the notice for initiation of the eviction proceeding, the petitioner went on to encroach further land and erected 3 storey building having 13-14 rooms in residential complex and 5 shops, which shows that it is in fact the commercial activity in complete disregard to the ecology of the sub-regions and law guiding the field. So, this court is of the opinion that the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not tenable. She should vacate the premises immediately and also to pay the cost of removal of the construction material. She is given time of one month to remove of the construction material from the site failing which she has to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- as costs to the State Exchequer.

The writ petition stands disposed of.