Uttarakhand High Court
WPMS/3661/2024 on 8 August, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
2025:UHC:6962
Office Notes,
reports,
orders or
SL. proceedings or
Date COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No. directions and
Registrar's
order with
Signatures
WPMS/3661/2024
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, Senior Advocate,
assisted by Mr. Bhupendra Singh Bora,
Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Shubhang
Dobhal, Advocate for the petitioner.
2. Mr. S.K. Nailwal, Standing Counsel for
the State of Uttarakhand / respondent nos. 1
to 3.
3. Ms. Anjali Bhargava, Advocate for
respondent no. 4.
4. Petitioner filed a suit under Section 229-
B of Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms
Act, 1950, for declaring him bhumidhar over
a land, which allegedly was in his possession
since 1962. The said suit was dismissed by
the Assistant Collector, First Class,
Bageshwar by holding that the land, which
allegedly is occupied by petitioner, is public
utility land recorded under Category-
9(3)(ga).
5. Petitioner challenged the said judgment
and order passed by Assistant Collector in an
Appeal, which was dismissed by Additional
Commissioner, Nainital, vide judgment dated
12.01.2016 holding that bhumidhari rights
cannot be granted in respect of public utility
land. Thereafter, petitioner filed second
appeal, which also was dismissed by Board of
Revenue, vide judgment dated 04.11.2024.
Thus, feeling aggrieved by the judgment and
orders passed by all the revenue Courts
below, petitioner has approached this Court.
2025:UHC:6962
6. This Court do not find any reason to
interfere with the impugned judgment and
orders. Law is well settled that bhumidhari
rights cannot be declared in respect of public
utility land viz graveyard, riverbed, pasture
etc. The land in question was recorded in
revenue records as non-Z.A. in category 9(3)
(ga), which indicates public utility land
meant for grazing of animals. Thus, the
judgment and order passed by Trial Court, as
affirmed by Appellate Courts do not warrant
any interference.
7. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for
the petitioner then submits that there is a
Government policy to regularise
unauthorized occupation of persons, who are
continuing in possession since long. He
submits that petitioner's application for
regularizing his possession is pending
consideration before the competent authority
and the Second Appellate Court has also
taken note of the said fact in paragraph no.
13 of its judgment.
8. Having regard to the fact that
petitioner's application for regularization of
his possession is pending consideration
before the competent authority, the writ
petition is disposed of by directing the
competent authority to examine petitioner's
claim for regularization, within six months
from the date of presentation of certified
copy of this order, along with copy of the
application, earlier filed by petitioner.
9. For a period of six months or till
decision is taken on petitioner's application,
whichever is earlier, status quo shall be
maintained.
(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
08.08.2025
Navin
NAVEEN
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT
2.5.4.20=3be23325146e76a0642bdf4943fb9046f487df006da82a
CHANDRA
131bb4e4403d3c0a15, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=18167EEFB5CA8CFFD421A103819DA875643AF5
6D653D095C6ED9A86DAAB21CE5, cn=NAVEEN CHANDRA
Date: 2025.08.09 12:31:14 +05'30'
