Uttarakhand High Court
Through: Shri Siddharath Singh vs District Magistrate on 6 January, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition No. 57 (MS) of 2023
Madan Singh Fartiyal ......... Petitioner.
Through: Shri Siddharath Singh,
learned counsel for the petitioner.
-Versus-
District Magistrate
and another. .........Respondents.
Through: Shri Suyash Pant, learned Standing
Counsel for State.
Shri Rajeev Singh Bisht, learned counsel for
the respondent no. 2.
Date of Hearing and Judgment : 06.01.2023
Shri Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, J.
1. By filing of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for
issuance of writ of Certiorari quashing the order dated 13.12.2022
(Annexure-2) passed by District Magistrate Nainital whereby the
regularization order dated 18.02.2016, has been cancelled,
without any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Such an
order was passed on the complaint of respondent no. 2 - Ravi
Shankar Joshi, who is now represented by Shri Rajeev Singh
Bisht, learned Counsel, but he has yet not filed his Vakalatnama.
In any case, we have given him opportunity of hearing.
1. The facts of the case are as follows:
On 12.02.2011, a land measuring 6.214 hectare
situated village Devla Talla Pajaya, Tehsil Haldwani,
District Nainital was leased out in favour of said late
Balwant Singh under the Government Grants Act by the
State of Uttar Pradesh. Late Balwant Singh applied for
regularization of land bearing Khasra No. 178 measuring
3.107 hectare. He was granted Bhumidhari rights over the
said land vide order dated 18.02.2016, which was
incorporated in Khatauni pertaining to 1420-1425 Fasli year.
On 10.03.2016, late Balwant Singh having transferable
rights had executed a registered gift deed in favour of
Ravikant Fulara.
On 09.05.2016, Ravikant Fulara executed sale deeds
in favour of petitioner.
On 04.08.2016, Ravikant Fulara executed a sale deed
in favour of Arvind Singh Mehra who executed a sale deed
in favour of the petitioner.
Respondent no. 2 filed a complaints before Chief
Secretary, State of Uttarakhand; Secretary (Revenue), State
of Uttarakhand; District Magistrate, Nainital; and Income
Tax Commissioner, challenging the regularization order of
land of Khata No. 40, Khasra No. 178 measuring 3.107
hectare. The District Magistrate, Nainital constituted a
Committee consisting of Additional Collector
(Administration); SDM, Haldwani; and Chief Development
Officer, Haldwani, which conducted an inquiry and
submitted its report dated 12.12.2022 to District Magistrate,
Nainital. On the basis of said inquiry report, impugned
order cancelling the earlier order of regularization was
passed by the District Magistrate, Nainital.
2. At this stage, it is admitted by Shri Suyash Pant, learned
counsel for the State and by Shri Rajeev Singh Bisht, learned
counsel that neither at the time of inquiry nor during the inquiry
nor while passing the impugned order, petitioner was heard.
Neither subsequent title holder Ravikant Fulara nor petitioner
nor other purchasers of the land, in question, nor legal heirs of
the deceased Balwant Singh were made party to the proceedings
or put to notice. If at all, the order passed by the authorities dated
18.02.2016 is without jurisdiction or illegal and requires
cancellation, then petitioner and others are proper and necessary
parties to be heard.
3. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the firm opinion
that the order dated 13.12.2022 passed by the District Magistrate,
Nainital is hit by non compliance of principles of natural justice,
and therefore, is hereby quashed by issuing a writ of Certiorari.
The matter is remanded back to the District Magistrate, Nainital
for reconsideration. Petitioner is at liberty to approach the District
Magistrate, Nainital and file his objection along with the relevant
documents within 21 days. It is further directed that if at all,
District Magistrate, Nainital considers to cancel the order of dated
18.02.2016 on the basis of report dated 12.12.2022, then all the
concerned shall be given reasonable opportunity of hearing and
production of documents, and then, he shall dispose of the matter
by reasoned and speaking order.
4. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands
disposed of.
(Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, J.)
(Grant urgent certified copy of this judgment, as per Rules)
Nahid
