SC stays Uttarakhand HC order on eviction at Haldwani

Image
Press Trust of India New Delhi
Last Updated : Jan 18 2017 | 7:28 PM IST
Supreme Court today stayed the order of Uttarakhand High Court ordering eviction of encroachmemt from 23 acres of land near the Haldwani railway station.
The apex court asked the petitioners (encroachers) to approach the High Court as they were not heard before passing of the eviction orders and directed the court to expeditiously decide their pleas in three months.
"We require the petitioners to move the High Court on or before February 13. All such applications that have been filed shall be taken up for hearing, affording an opportunity to petitioners of being heard. We request the High Court to dispose of the petitions in three months from February 13. Directions contained in the impugned order dated January 10, 2017 shall remain stayed for three months," a bench of Chief Justice J S Khehar and Justice D Y Chandrachud said.
The bench noted that individual notices were not served upon the petitioners and the notice served was addressed as "all encroachers in railway land".
It said that Provisions of Public Premises Eviction Act cannot be invoked arbitrarily to oust the petitioners without following the procedure laid down in law.
The apex court said the petitioners should approach the High Court seeking recall of the order. On January 10, the High Court had directed removal of encroachment from the railway land within four weeks.
Senior advocate Indira Jaising, appearing for the petitioners, said the High Court has erred in passing eviction order as the land is not demarcated and there was an ownership dispute between state and railways.
She said the land in question had schools, college, houses and mosque and over 50,000 people, some of them living since Independence who cannot be evicted without following proper procedure laid down under law.
Senior advocate Salman Khurshid appearing for Uttarakhand government said due to soil erosion, the demarcation of land has blurred, while also referring to India-China border dispute where there is lack of clarity.
"This is for External Affairs Minister to worry, not us. Court does not need to worry about all these issue," the bench in lighter vein told Khurshid, who had held the portfolio of External Affairs minister during UPA-II rule.
The high court had also dismissed a review application filed by the state to stay the removal of encroachment from the premises of Railway Authorities Gafur Basti at Haldwani and directed the Senior Superintendent of Police Nainital, to provide the necessary police force.

Disclaimer: No Business Standard Journalist was involved in creation of this content

*Subscribe to Business Standard digital and get complimentary access to The New York Times

Smart Quarterly

₹900

3 Months

₹300/Month

SAVE 25%

Smart Essential

₹2,700

1 Year

₹225/Month

SAVE 46%
*Complimentary New York Times access for the 2nd year will be given after 12 months

Super Saver

₹3,900

2 Years

₹162/Month

Subscribe

Renews automatically, cancel anytime

Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans

Exclusive premium stories online

  • Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors

Complimentary Access to The New York Times

  • News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic

Business Standard Epaper

  • Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share

Curated Newsletters

  • Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox

Market Analysis & Investment Insights

  • In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor

Archives

  • Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997

Ad-free Reading

  • Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements

Seamless Access Across All Devices

  • Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app

More From This Section

First Published: Jan 18 2017 | 7:28 PM IST

Next Story