Uttarakhand HC Gives PWD Notice Recipients 3 Weeks to Contest Encroachment Claims, Keeps Possession Unchanged for Up to 4 Months

The petitioners challenged notices dated 19 August 2023 requiring removal of alleged encroachments from public land.

The notice to Umesh Chandra Nautiyal alleged that his roadside encroachment on PWD land had reduced the road width, created a bottleneck, and posed a risk of accidents; it required removal within three days, failing which the encroachment would be removed at his expense

The petitions were heard together because they raised common questions of law and fact.

In an earlier order dated 17 October 2023, a Coordinate Bench had directed the State to establish district-level Coordination Committees to demarcate public-land boundaries and identify encroachments.

The State informed the Court that committees had since been constituted in all 13 districts.

The Court relied on the procedural directions in its order dated 17 October 2023, which required district-level Coordination Committees, headed by the District Magistrate and including specified departmental officers, to coordinate the demarcation of boundaries and identification of encroachments; the relevant Sub-Divisional Magistrate was also to be associated for the concerned subdivision.

The Court directed that the petitioners’ replies be considered and that the Committee decide the matter in accordance with law. No statute or precedent was cited in this judgment.

Because the Coordination Committees had been constituted to examine encroachment issues, the Court considered it appropriate for the petitioners to submit their replies to the relevant Committee rather than determine the factual allegations itself at this stage.

It directed the Committee to consider those replies and make a decision in accordance with law, while preserving the existing position concerning the land until that decision or the expiry of the specified period, whichever occurred first.

It permitted the petitioners to submit replies to the Coordination Committee within three weeks; the Committee was directed to decide within three months thereafter.

The parties were directed to maintain status quo regarding the land in the petitioners’ possession for four months or until the Committee’s decision, whichever was earlier.

Both writ petitions were disposed of subject to these directions.