Darshan Lal vs State Of Uttarakhand
2025 Latest Caselaw 3628 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Darshan Lal vs State Of Uttarakhand on 16 April, 2025

Author: Rakesh Thapliyal

Bench: Rakesh Thapliyal

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
            AT NAINITAL
                       Writ Petition (MS) No. 1031 of 2025

Darshan Lal.                                          ..................... Petitioner.

                                            Versus

State of Uttarakhand
and others.                                              ...............Respondents.
Present:
Mr. Dinesh Chauhan and Ms. Nisha Dhami, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Ganesh Kandpal, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State.



Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Thapliyal, J.

1. By the instant writ petition, petitioner is praying of a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to decide the issue of free hold over the nazul land allotted to the petitioner.

2. Earlier the issue relating to free hold of nazul land came up before the Division Bench of this Court in Public Interest Litigations being WPPIL No. 132 of 2013, WPPIL No. 173 of 2015 and WPPIL No. 142 of 2016 decided on 19.06.2018 and the Division Bench of this Court issued following directions, which are being extracted hereinbelow:

"19. Surprisingly, while we were dealing with the matter pertaining to establishment of National Law University, learned Advocate General, in that matter, gave a statement that land measuring merely 10 acres is not available in the Districts of Nainital and Udham Singh Nagar. Why this much of land is not available because the State Government, instead of retaining its land, has permitted the same to be granted to unscrupulous people under the unauthorized occupation of the government land. The State Government has not shown any concern for the

establishment of the University but has vehemently defended the circular framed to declare the Nazul land as freehold.

20. Accordingly, all these petitions are allowed.

A. Clauses 4(f)(g)(h) of the Nazul Policy dated 1.3.2009 issued by the State Government is struck down along with all consequential orders by applying the principle of severability. The State Government is directed to take possession of the Nazul land which was declared freehold as per the Notification dated 1.3.2009.

B. The land in occupation of unauthorized occupants will be deemed to be in occupation of the State Government free from all encumbrances.

C. The State Government has admitted all these persons to be in unauthorized occupation as per Section 2(g) of the U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1972. No separate order of eviction is required issued qua them but they are still required to be evicted.

D. The State Government is restrained from issuing general policy or Nazul policy to regularize the unauthorized occupants/encroachments in future and even if any policy has come into force after 01.03.2009, the same shall not be given effect.

E. Costs is quantified as Rs.5.00 lakh. The costs imposed shall be deposited in the corpus for creating the National Law University in the State of Uttarakhand."

3. The aforesaid judgment was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by virtue of SLP No. 27862 of 2018 by one Sunita

and the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 03.12.2021 stayed the judgment passed by this Court. There is another SLP No. 9405 of 2019 which was dismissed as withdrawn on 28.08.2023, copy of which is placed before this Court.

4. Learned State Counsel informed to this Court that earlier the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed status quo order on 08.10.2018, however, a modification application was filed by the State for seeking modification of the status quo order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and by order dated 03.12.2021 entire order of the High Court was stayed until further orders.

5. This Court take serious cognizance on the earlier occasion that when the matter is still pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the judgment passed by this Court is stayed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, whether the State Government can frame any new policy. It has been informed to this Court that new policy has been framed in the year 2021 by the State Government in WPMS No. 3564 of 2023.

6. Yesterday, in order to verify whether any new policy is framed the Secretary was asked to join the proceedings through V.C.. Today, Mr. Meenakshi Sundram, Secretary, Government of Uttarakhand joined the proceedings through V.C. in order to assist this Court and he apprised to this Court that no such new policy has been framed, on or after 03.12.2021 the date when the Hon'ble Supreme Court stayed the order of the High Court and only the earlier policy has been extended.

7. Now, the question is whether the State Government can extend the period of old policy this Court has again gone through with the judgment passed by this Court dated 19.06.2018 in aforesaid three PILs. The directions issued by this Court in

paragraph 20 (D) are very clear and for ready reference, the same is being extracted hereinbelow:

"D. The State Government is restrained from issuing general policy or Nazul policy to regularize the unauthorized occupants/encroachments in future and even if any policy has come into force after 01.03.2009, the same shall not be given effect."

8. As per direction of the High Court, the State Government was restrained from issuing general policy or Nazul policy to regularize the unauthorized occupants/encroachments in future and even if any policy has come into force after 01.03.2009, the State Government also restrain from given effect to any such policy.

9. Now, the question how the State Government can extend the old policy despite aforesaid restriction particularly when the Hon'ble Supreme Court seized with the matter.

10. When a query put on made from the Secretary whether any permission has been sought from the Hon'ble Supreme Court for extending the period of old policy, the Secretary informed to this Court that the State Government in its own extended the old policy and no such permission was sought. If it is so then it is a very serious issue because when the matter is pending in the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the judgment of this Court is under scrutiny and sub judice then how without seeking permission from the Hon'ble Supreme Court the State Government in its own extended the old policy.

11. Mr. Meenakshi Sundram apprised to this Court that the competent authority giving free hold rights over the nazul land are vest with the District Magistrate of each Districts and he is

not aware about the details that how many persons has been given free hold rights on or after 03.12.2021.

12. Let Mr. Meenakshi Sundram shall file his personal affidavit within three weeks giving complete details of giving free holds rights over the nazul land in each district on or after 03.12.2021 and how many matters are pending for consideration for free hold rights in each districts. He shall also state in the affidavit, how much nazul land is still vacant with it's location and district and what is future plan of the Government in vacant nazul land. He shall also explain why the Government has not proposed to establish National Law University in the nazul land and what is status of SLP pending in the Supreme Court.

13. Since the matter is sub judice before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the State Government has not obtained any permission from Hon'ble the Supreme Court giving free hold rights over the nazul land, therefore, till the matter is sub judice before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the State Government including all the District Magistrates in the State of Uttarakhand are restrained from giving free hold rights over the nazul land.

14. List this matter on 14.05.2025.

(Rakesh Thapliyal, J.)

16.04.2025 SKS