Legal Analysis on Evacuee Land Possession

Explore the detailed legal analysis conducted by the High Court in a recent case concerning possession rights on evacuee land. The Court’s thorough examination of the government policies and relevant judgments provides valuable insights into the prioritization of displaced persons and the rights of encroachers. Stay informed on the complex legal considerations surrounding property rights in such cases.


  • The appellant, an encroacher on evacuee land, filed multiple appeals and petitions after receiving a show cause notice for unauthorized possession.
  • The appellant argued for regularization based on government resolutions from 1978 and 1980.
  • An appeal filed by another individual, Srikant Deviprasad Joshi, was heard along with the appellant’s case.
  • A writ petition filed by the appellant was served notice under the Displaced Person Act after an eviction order in 1992.
  • The Single Bench initially ruled that the appellant was not an encroacher but had no rights over the evacuee property.
  • An intra Court appeal remanded both cases back to the Single Bench.
  • The appellant claimed regularization of possession and sought to quash the eviction order.
  • Shri Joshi claimed rights over the property based on allotment in 1972 as enemy property.
  • The appellant referenced a notice from 1989 and stated his application to purchase the land was pending due to the writ petition.
  • The land allotted to Shri Joshi was canceled in 1974.
  • The learned Single Bench dismissed the writ petition of the appellant on 24.10.2013.
  • The appellant challenged the eviction order dated 23.6.1992.
  • The order has been upheld by the learned Division Bench.

Also Read: Critical Analysis of Circumstantial Evidence in Arson Case


  • The eviction order against the appellant was deemed legal and valid as the appellant did not have any claim for allotment or regularization of his possession of the land in question.
  • Priority is given to the displaced person over an encroacher for allotment of evacuee land as per the government policy decision dated 20.06.1978.
  • The Circular of 20.6.1978 governs the claim for regularization of possession of the appellant over the evacuee land.
  • The appellant’s reliance on the judgment in Ramesh Parsram Malani regarding displaced persons filing claims before 30.06.1955 does not apply to his case.
  • The High Court was requested to determine if the eviction order from 23.06.1992 had any legal irregularities, but the appellant’s lack of claim to the evacuee land does not support his argument.
  • In the case of Ramesh Parsram Malani v. State of Telangana, the Court emphasized that displaced persons must be settled before the State Government can use the land for other purposes.
  • The appeal is dismissed as it lacks merit.
  • The appellant’s claim for restoration of possession by an encroacher is considered wholly untenable.

Also Read: Analysis of Commencement Date in Gratuity Act Amendment Case


Case Number: C.A. No.-002851-002851 / 2015

Click here to read/download original judgement

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *