Uttarakhand High Court
Dheeraj Pal vs Indian Oil Corporation & Others on 9 April, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MS. RITU BAHRI
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH THAPLIYAL
SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 372 OF 2021
09TH APRIL, 2024
Dheeraj Pal ...... Appellant
Versus
Indian Oil Corporation & others ...... Respondents
Counsel for the appellant : Ms. Abhilasha Tomar, learned
counsel holding brief of Mr.
Sandeep Kothari, learned counsel
Counsel for the respondents : Mr. V.K. Kohli, learned Senior
Counsel assisted by Mr. Kanti
Ram, learned counsel for
respondent Nos. 1 and 2
: Mr. Siddhartha Singh, learned
counsel for respondent No. 4
The Court made the following:
JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble The Chief Justice Ms. Ritu Bahri)
The appellant has come up in appeal against the
judgment dated 22.07.2021, passed by learned Single Judge,
in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 332 of 2020, whereby the writ
petition filed by the present appellant for quashing the order
dated 30.01.2020, by which the selection of respondent No.
7 was made for the dealership of the petrol pump, has been
dismissed.
2) A perusal of the judgment passed by the learned
Single Judge shows that the draw of lots was made on
23.07.2019, in which appellant-petitioner had also
participated. Respondent No. 4 was declared to be
successful.
3) The grievance of the appellant-petitioner with
regard to the selection of respondent No. 4 was that the land
offered by respondent No. 4 for setting up the retail outlet
has been taken on lease, while as per the provisions of
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter
referred to as 'the Act'), agricultural land cannot be let out by
a Bhumidhar / tenure holder. This aspect has been
considered by the learned Single Judge, and in paragraph 17,
the learned Single Judge has observed that respondent No. 4
had stated that as per the lease deed the land was not being
used for agriculture purpose, but was used for other
purposes since long. The learned Single Judge thereafter
referred to Section 165 of the Act, which deals with effects of
lease in contravention of Section 157, and in paragraph 19,
by referring to Section 165 of the Act it has been observed
that if a Bhumidhar lets out his holding or part thereof in
contravention of the provisions of Section 156 or 157, then
the lessee will become the Bhumidhar with non-transferable
rights, and the leased land should not exceed 12.5 acres.
Hence, for all intents and purposes, the lease which was in
favour of respondent No. 4 was a valid lease. Even if the
lease is said to be in contravention of the provisions of
Section 156 to 157 of the Act, then also the leasee will
become the Bhumidhar with non-transferable rights, and
hence the allotment has been made rightly, and the writ
petition stands dismissed.
4) In the present case, the allotment was made in
the year 2019, and as per the counsel for respondent No. 4,
the petrol pump is running since then. Since there is no
violation of any other provisions of the Act, the special
appeal lacks merit, and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.
_______________
RITU BAHRI, C.J.
________________
RAKESH THAPLIYAL, J.
TH
Dt: 09 APRIL, 2024
Negi
