Uttarakhand High Court
WPMS/2011/2021 on 24 September, 2021
Office Notes,
reports, orders or
proceedings or
sl. No Date COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
directions and
Registrar's order
with Signatures
WPMS No.2011 of 2021
Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.
Mr. Pankaj Kumar Sharma, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Ajay Singh Bisht, Additional CSC,
for the State of Uttarakhand.
The petitioner has come up with a case,
that in a relation to the land in dispute which is
lying in Khata No.582, Khasara No.188 Ma,
having an area of 0.448, hectare, situated in
Village Dhandera, Tehsil Roorkee, District
Haridwar. Earlier, there had been the
proceedings under Section 122B of the
UPZA&LR Act, which was drawn against the
petitioner. Ultimately, by an order of
23.07.2003, the notices, which were issued
under Section 122B of the Act being Notice 49
d, was withdrawn.
The said order is said to have attained
finality, because no further proceedings, was
carried by the respondents in pursuance to its
withdrawal of notice. The petitioner has further
contended, that when there was an act of
forceful interference made over his possession,
he has filed the regular civil suit for the grant of
a decree of permanent injunction; being Suit
No.29 of 2003, "Ashok Kumar Vs. Ramkali &
others", which was decreed ex-parte, in his
favour as back as on 13.12.2010, and by virtue
of the said decree, the defendants to the suit
were restrained from forcefully interfering over
the property, which was a subject of the suit.
In fact, what he contends that by virtue
of the impugned order, which has been passed
by the Additional District Magistrate, Roorkee,
District Haridwar, on an administrative side,
under the garb of taking the purported action
against one Mr. Amrish Kumar Sharma, the
then Registrar (Kanungoo), he has restrained
the parties to deal with the property in question
in any manner whatsoever. In fact, apparently
the nature of the order of 23.06.2021, is as if
the Additional District Magistrate, was sitting
over the judicial review of the judgment
rendered in the proceedings of the regular suit,
by interpreting the decree itself interpreting it
thereof, that this is not a decree for the
declaration of rights, has inferred that no
saleable rights would vest with the petitioner.
Since, it is an absolute civil right, which
has been settled, and the determination of the
title is a question which is incidental, when the
decree of injunction was granted in favour of
the plaintiff/petitioner.
The Additional District Magistrate, while
exercising his executive powers by calling an
explanation by issuance of show cause notice to
the erstwhile Registrar (Kanungoo), could not
have, on an executive side restraining the sale
of the property in any manner whatsoever
overriding the effect of decree of civil court.
Hence, while directing the respondents
to file counter affidavit within a period of three
weeks today, the effect and operation of the
impugned order dated 23.06.2021, would be
kept in abeyance, till the next date of listing.
List this writ petition after filing of the
counter affidavit.
(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.)
24.09.2021
NR/
