WPMS/1289/2020
2021 Latest Caselaw 560 UK

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
           AT NAINITAL
            ON THE 1STDAY OFMARCH, 2021
                           BEFORE:
 HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI
       Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1289 of 2020
BETWEEN:
UttarakhandWaqf Board                         ...Petitioner
     (Mr. T.A. Khan, Senior Advocate with Mr. ArharBaig,
     Advocate)

AND:
State of Uttarakhand&others ...Respondents

(By Mr. T.S. Pharityal, Additional C.S.C. for the State of
Uttarakhand&Mr. V.C. Mishra, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr.
Amar Shukla, Advocate for the private respondents)

                       JUDGMENT

This writ petition has been filed by UttarakhandWaqf Board seeking the following reliefs:-

(i) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 14.01.2019 issued by the respondent no. 1 (Annexure No. 5 to the writ petition)

(ii) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no. 1 to 3 not to deliver the land mentioned in office memo dated 14.01.2019, to the respondents no. 4 to

2. It transpires that title dispute, in respect of land comprised in various Khasra numbers,situate in Village PiranKaliyar, Tehsil Roorkee, District Haridwar, was pending between the petitioner and the private respondents before different forums. Title dispute qua some Khasra numbers has been decided in favour of private respondents; while, in respect of other plot numbers, such dispute is still pending. Petitioner is

aggrieved by administrative order dated 14.01.2019 passed by Additional Chief Secretary, Minority Welfare Department, Government of Uttarakhand, whereby District Magistrate, Haridwar has been directed to demarcate the land comprised in different Khasra numbers mentioned in the order.

3. It is the contention of learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner that since title dispute, regarding some plots, is pending before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, therefore, the direction issued in the impugned order, to demarcate all the plots and to deliver possession thereof to the private respondents, is uncalled for.

4. Per contra, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the private respondents has raised a preliminary objection that the writ petition is premature, as it is based on apprehension of the petitioner. He also submits that the writ petition has become infructuous, inasmuch as, demarcation has been made pursuant to the impugned order.

5. In reply, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, under the garb of impugned order, private respondents are trying to grab even those plots, regarding which title dispute is pending, therefore, in order to protect his interest petitioner is entitled to maintain this petition. He further submits that demarcation, if made, after filing of the writ petition and in violation of order of this Court, will not render the writ petition infructuous.

6. From the material available on record, it is apparent that title dispute is pending between the

parties, in respect of several plots, before different authorities under Consolidation of Holdings Act. In order to ensure that the order impugned in the writ petition may not prejudice the case of the petitioner in the pending proceedings, a limited interference with the impugned order is called for.

7. Therefore, it is provided that the direction issued by the State Government in the impugned order shall apply in respect of such plots, regarding which title dispute has attained finality and, for remaining plots, the direction issued shall have no application.

8. With the aforesaid observation the writ petition is disposed of.

(MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J.) Aswal