Hotel Guide Union vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 1784 UK

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

            Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1906 of 2023
Hotel Guide Union                           .............Petitioner

                               Versus

State of Uttarakhand and others ...........Respondents
Present:-
              Mr. Piyush Garg, Advocate for the petitioner.
              Mr. T.S. Phartiyal, Additional Chief Standing Counsel
              with Mr. Suyesh Pant, Standing Counsel for the
              State of Uttarakhand/respondent no. 1.
              Mr. Bhuwan Bhatt, Advocate for respondent no.2.
              Mr. Hari Mohan Bhaita, Advocate for respondent
              no.3.



                            With
            Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1907 of 2023
Surendra Singh and others                   .............Petitioners

                               Versus

State of Uttarakhand and others ...........Respondents
Present:-
              Mr. Piyush Garg, Advocate for the petitioner.
              Mr. T.S. Phartiyal, Additional Chief Standing Counsel
              with Mr. Suyesh Pant, Standing Counsel for the
              State of Uttarakhand/respondent no. 1.
              Mr. Bhuwan Bhatt, Advocate for respondent no.2.
              Mr. Hari Mohan Bhaita, Advocate for respondent
              no.3.



                           JUDGMENT

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

Since common question of facts involved in

both these writ petitions, they are heard together and are

being decided by this common judgment.

2. Both the petitioners have been issued notices

on 28.06.2023, by the respondent no.2, requiring the

petitioners to handover the possession of premises under

the tenancy within 15 days or else, the premise will be

demolished.

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the record.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would

submit that 4.25 Acre land was to be handed over by the

Nagar Palika Parishad, Mussoorie to the State Tourism

Department for constructions of ropeway. Various

encroachers and tenants of that premises earlier filed writ

petitions in this Court. The encroachers did file Writ

Petition (M/S) No.3774 of 2019, Bharat Bahadur Thapa

vs. State of Uttarakhand and another; and the tenants

filed Writ Petition (M/S) No.3287 of 2018, Mazdoor Sangh

Mussoorie Dehradun vs. State of Uttarakhand and others

("the petitions"). Both these petitions were heard and

decided together by this Court on 17.08.2020. The

petitions were dismissed, but it is argued that the

petitioners were given liberty to approach the competent

authority for implementation of the decision taken in the

meeting of Nagar Palika Parishad on 15.03.2013. It is

argued that the judgment and order dated 17.08.2020

were unsuccessfully challenged in Special Appeal No.162

of 2020, Mazdoor Sangh Mussoorie vs. State of

Uttarakhand and others.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would

submit that the petitioners are tenants. They should be

given the equal treatment by the Nagar Palika Parishad

Mussoorie by giving the benefit of the decision taken in

the meeting dated 15.03.2013, which the Nagar Palika

Parishad, Mussoorie had extended to the 24 tenants after

the judgment passed in the petitions.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the Nagar Palika

Parishad, Mussoorie would admit that earlier 24 tenants

had filed the writ petition in the Court, in which, they

were granted liberty to seek implementation of the

decision taken in the meeting of the Nagar Palika

Parishad on 15.03.2013. He would submit that, in fact,

the benefit of the decision taken in the meeting by the

Nagar Palika Parishad, Mussoorie on 15.03.2013 had

already been extended to the tenants, who had filed the

writ petition earlier. He would submit that the petitioners

would also be extended the same benefits. He would

submit that, in fact, Nagar Palika Parishad, Mussoorie

had also passed a Resolution on 21.10.2022 on that

aspect.

7. The Court takes on record the statement given

by the learned counsel for the respondent no.2.

8. The partitioners claim to be the tenants of the

respondent no.2, Nagar Palika Parishad, Mussoorie. Their

tenancy has been determined for a greater cause for

construction of ropeway in Mussoorie. The land is to be

transferred to the Uttarakhand Tourism Development

Board for construction of the ropeway. Similar situated

tenants' writ petitions have already been dismissed and

unsuccessfully challenged in the appeal. Therefore, there

is no substance in the writ petition. Accordingly, it

deserves to be dismissed.

9. Both the petitions are dismissed. However, the

petitioners shall also be entitled to the benefit of the

decision of the Nagar Palika Parishad, Mussoorie taken on

25.03.2013.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 05.07.2023 Sanjay