Uttarakhand High Court
Dharmendra & Others ... vs B.H.E.L. Ranipur Haridwar on 16 November, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition No. (M/S) 2570 of 2017
Dharmendra & others ..........Petitioners
-Versus-
B.H.E.L. Ranipur Haridwar .......Respondent
Present:
Mr. Tapan Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioners.
Mr. V.K. Kohli, the learned Senior Advocate assisted by
Mr. Kanti Ram Sharma, the learned counsel for the
respondent.
Sri S.K. Mishra, J.
Date of hearing and judgment
16.11.2021
1. Heard Mr. Tapan Singh, the learned counsel for
the petitioners and Mr. V.K. Kohli, the learned senior
counsel assisted by Mr. Kanti Ram Sharma, the
learned counsel for the respondent.
2. In this writ petition, the petitioners challenges
the order passed by the learned 4th Additional District
Judge, Haridwar in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 40 of 2017
on 14.09.2017. The learned 4th Additional District
Judge, Haridwar has set aside the aforesaid order of
injunction, granted by the learned Civil Judge (S.D.)
Haridwar against the opposite party. The plaintiff filed
the suit for perpetual injunction seeking restraining of
the respondent from interfering the possession of the
petitioner in respect of the land bearing Khasra No. 46
measuring 12 bigha & 9 biswa situated in Mauja
Village Jwalapur, Tehsil & District Haridwar and, after
appearance temporary injunction was granted against
B.H.E.L. vide order dated 04.07.2017 which was set
aside by the 4th Additional District Judge, Hardiwar.
3. The facts of the case are not disputed. The Land
Acquisition Notification dated 08.02.1962 was issued
under Section 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Thereafter, possession was taken by the State
Government and was delivered to the B.H.E.L. Since
1962, the land is in the possession of the B.H.E.L and
it has been handed over to the State Industrial
Development Corporation of Uttarakhand (hereinafter
referred to as SIDCUL) for development purposes.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
since land has been given to another corporation, the
purpose of acquisition has been defeated, and,
therefore, he should get back his land. As per Section
48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 once the land is
acquired by the State Government it cannot be
withdrawn from acquisition. (State Government
Houseless Harijan Employees' Association vs. State of
Karnataka, AIR 2001 SC 437 relied upon).
5. In that view of the matter, as the land has been
acquired by the State Government and has been
handed over to the B.H.E.L. which has allotted the
same to the SIDCUL for development purposes a
temporary injunction cannot be issued against the
opposite party. Hence, the order passed by the
learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) has been rightly set
aside by the learned 4th Additional District Judge,
Haridwar in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 40 of 14. Hence, no
case is made out for interference in the order passed
by the learned 4th Additional District Judge, Haridwar.
6. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed being devoid
of merit.
7. There shall be no order as to costs.
8. Urgent certified copies of this order be provided
as per rules.
(S.K. Mishra)
Judge
PV
