Gurbhajan Singh And Another ... vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 2299 UK

  HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

            Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1697 of 2016


Gurbhajan Singh and another                          ..Petitioners

                               Versus

State of Uttarakhand and others                     ..Respondents
Present:-
            Mr. T.P.S. Takuli, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Deep
            Prakash Bhatt, Advocate for the petitioners.
            Mr. Yogesh Pandey, Additional C.S.C. for the State.

                            JUDGMENT

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

By means of instant petition, the petitioners seek

the following reliefs:-

"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature

of certiorari quashing the impugned order

dated 23.11.2015 passed by respondent no.3

and order dated 30.05.2016 passed by

respondent no.2.

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature

of mandamus directing the respondents not

to proceed in pursuance with the order dated

23.11.2015, passed by respondent no.3 and

order dated 30.05.2016 passed by

respondent no.2.

(iii) Issue any other or further writ, order or

direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem

fit and proper in the circumstances of the

case

(iv) To award the cost of the petition in favour of

the petitioner."

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused

the record.

3. It is the case of the petitioners that they are owner

of an agricultural land. The brother of the petitioners made a

false complaint against them with the allegation of illegal

excavation. An inquiry was conducted, it was found that the

petitioners had made certain excavations. Thereafter, the

petitioners were issued a notice on 23.11.2015 by the

respondent no.3 the District Magistrate Udham Singh Nagar

requiring them to deposit Rs.1683/-. The petitioners moved

an application that they want to close the dispute and are

ready and willing to deposit Rs.1683/-. By the impugned

order dated 23.11.2015, the petitioners have been directed to

pay total Rs.3,08,900/- (Rs.2,00,000/- fine and

Rs.1,08,900/- royalty. The petitioners did challenge the

order dated 23.11.2015 passed by the District Magistrate,

Udham Singh Nagar before the respondent no.2, the

Commissioner, Kumaon Mandal, Nainital ("the

Commissioner") in appeal. The appeal has been dismissed on

the ground that the petitioners themselves have pleaded the

guilt.

4. State has filed a counter affidavit. There is no

denial of the averments as made by the petitioners.

5. A very short question requires deliberation. The

petitioners were issued a notice on 23.10.2013 requiring

them to deposit royalty of Rs.1,683/- or else it shall be

forcibly recovered from them. The petitioners agreed to

deposit the amount so as to close the dispute. But, by the

impugned order dated 23.11.2015, the respondent no.3 the

District Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar evaluated the

royalty in some other manner and imposed Rs.2,00,000/-

fine with royalty of Rs.1,08,900/- (Total Rs.3,08,900/-). The

appeal has been dismissed.

6. The impugned orders dated 23.11.2015 as well as

30.05.2016 is based on the assumption that the petitioners

had admitted their guilt. The admission has to be read in

totality. Annexure 7 is the communication made by the

petitioners. He would submit that based on admission, they

want to deposit the amount of Rs.1683/- and want to close

the case. It is the case of the petitioners that they do not

want to protract the proceedings and want to finish the case.

The petitioners were never required to show cause as to why

Rs.3,08,900/- be not recovered from them. A notice was

given to the petitioners to deposit Rs. 1,683/- only and when

the petitioners agreed to deposit this amount, Rs.3,08,900/-

has been imposed on them. This could not have been done

based on the admission of the petitioners. On merits, the

matter could have been discussed by the respondent no.2,

the Commissioner and the respondent no.3 the District

Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar.

6. Having considered, this Court is of the view that

the impugned orders are not in accordance with law.

Accordingly, the impugned orders deserve to be quashed.

7. The petition is allowed.

8. The impugned orders dated 23.11.2015 and

30.05.2016 are quashed.

9. The amount deposited by the petitioners shall be

refunded to the petitioners.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 17.08.2023 Jitendra