WPMB/214/2023
2023 Latest Caselaw 2430 UK

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
                                  AT NAINITAL
                   HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI VIPIN SANGHI
                                          AND
                      HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAKESH THAPLIYAL

                  WRIT PETITION (M/B) NO. 214 OF 2023
                             23RD AUGUST, 2023
BETWEEN:
Vinod Kumar                                                       .....Petitioner.
And

State of Uttarakhand & others                                  ....Respondents.

Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr. Bhupesh Kandpal, holding brief of Mr. Hem Chandra Joshi, learned counsel.

Counsel for the Respondents : Mr. J.C. Pande, learned Standing Counsel.

The Court made the following:

JUDGMENT:(per Hon'ble The Chief Justice Sri Vipin Sanghi)

The present writ petition has been preferred by the

petitioner to assail the notice dated 25.07.2023, issued by

the Prescribed Officer (Ceiling) to the petitioner, alleging that

the land purchased by the petitioner is falling in a tea estate

and could not have been sold by the owner, or purchased by

the petitioner. The notice claims that the land belonging to

the State.

2. Earlier, notice had been issued on 15.07.2022 to

one Kumud Vaid in respect of the same parcel of land, in

respect whereof, Writ Petition (M/S) No.2865 of 2022 had

been preferred by the petitioner before this Court. The

petitioner has not placed on record a copy of the order

passed in that writ petition.

3. However, Mr. Kandpal submits that the said writ

petition was disposed of in terms of the order dated

18.08.2022, passed in Writ Petition (M/S) No.1933 of 2022, a

copy whereof has been placed on record. We had directed the

petitioners before us to respond to the show-cause notices

and also directed that the respondents shall grant a hearing

to the petitioners before taking a decision in the matter.

4. The submission of Mr. Kandpal is that now the

notice has been issued in the name of Proprietorship firm

Khushi Building Material Supplier, which is the proprietorship

of Vinod Kumar- petitioner herein.

5. In our view, the present writ petitioner should have

responded to the show-cause notice rather than approaching

this Court at this stage. It is open to the petitioner to state-

whatever he desires, in response to the said notice before the

Prescribed Authority. We have no doubt that the Prescribed

Authority shall consider all the pleas of the petitioner, and

pass a reasoned and speaking order, disposing of the show-

cause notice.

6. The petitioner is granted three weeks' time to file

reply to the show-cause notice. The Prescribed Authority

shall, thereafter, fix the date of hearing when the petitioner

shall be personally heard, and the show-cause notice shall be

disposed of by a reasoned and speaking order.

7. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid

terms.

8. We, however, make it clear that we have not

examined the petitioner's case on merits.

9. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.

(VIPIN SANGHI, C.J.)

(RAKESH THAPLIYAL, J.) Dated: 23rd August, 2023 NISHANT