The Uttarakhand High Court has quashed a land eviction order issued by the State Scheduled Castes Commission, clarifying that the statutory body functions strictly in a recommendatory capacity and lacks the authority to issue binding directives.
The ruling was delivered by a single-judge bench of Justice Pankaj Purohit while hearing a petition filed by Rajendra Prasad Kabatiyal. The petitioner had approached the court to challenge an order passed by the Uttarakhand Scheduled Castes Commission in May 2024, which had directed state officials to forcibly evict him from a specific plot of land.
The legal battle originated when the Commission intervened in a land matter involving allegations of unauthorized occupation. Representing the Commission, counsel argued that the eviction directive was not arbitrary but based on evidence gathered during an inquiry into the petitioner’s alleged illegal possession of the land.
However, during the proceedings, a critical legal admission was made. The Commission’s own counsel conceded that while the body is empowered to investigate and gather evidence, its legal mandate is limited to making recommendations to the government or relevant authorities rather than exercising executive powers of eviction.
Upon examining the statutory framework governing the Commission, the High Court observed that the body had exceeded its jurisdiction. The court emphasized that the Commission does not possess the judicial or executive power to pass orders that carry the weight of a final directive, such as an eviction notice.
“The Uttarakhand Scheduled Castes Commission is merely a recommendatory body and does not have the authority to issue directives such as eviction from land,” the court observed.
Justice Purohit held that by ordering state officials to carry out an eviction, the Commission had stepped outside the boundaries of its legal role. Consequently, the May 2024 order was quashed as being legally unsustainable.
While the High Court set aside the Commission’s specific order, it did not dismiss the underlying dispute regarding the land. The court granted liberty to all involved parties to pursue alternative legal remedies available under the law to settle the matter of land ownership or occupation.
