Uttarakhand High Court
Shashank Sharma vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 26 August, 2025
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Special Appeal No. 236 of 2021
Shashank Sharma ...........Appellant
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and others ........... Respondents
Present : Mr. Tapan Singh, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Ganga Singh Negi, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the
State/respondent nos.1 to 6.
Mr. Vikas Bahuguna, Advocate for respondent no.7.
Coram : Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani. J.
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
The challenge in this appeal is made to judgment and
order dated 09.07.2021, passed in WPMS No.1913 of 2020,
Shashank Sharma Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others ("the writ
petition"), by which, the amendment application filed by the
appellant has been rejected.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
3. The writ petition has been filed by the appellant on the
ground that he is owner of the property situated at No.24 Rajpur
Road, Dehradun (New No.16, Rajpur Road, Dehradun) ("the land").
The State of Uttarakhand had issued a notification for acquisition
of a land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ("the Act") and
possession of the land was taken way back on 17.03.2006. The
appellant approached for compensation, but he was told that the
land is not required by the State Government. Therefore, the
appellant filed the writ petition seeking directions to the
respondents to pay the compensation of the land of the appellant as
well as issue directions to the respondents so as not to de-notify the
land from acquisition under Section 48(1) of the Act.
4. The respondents have filed their counter affidavits.
According to the State of Uttarakhand, pursuant to the judgment
dated 06.11.2019 passed by this Court in WPMS No.2986 of 2018,
Rajiv Berry and others Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others, a
decision has been taken that the land is not required to be acquired
now. Therefore, a de-notification has already been issued on
09.12.2019.
5. The respondent no.7/Inder Singh has filed separate
counter affidavit. It is the case of the respondent no.7 that he is
owner of the land in possession; the sale-deed of the land was
executed in his favour pursuant to the judgment and decree dated
31.03.2016, passed in Original Suit No.179 of 2001, Shri Inder
Singh Vs. Sandeep Goyal and others, by the court of Additional
Civil Judge Second (Sr. Div.), Dehradun ("the suit") and sale
consideration of Rs.2,57,50,000 has already been withdrawn by the
appellant. It is also the case of the respondent no.7 that the land in
question has already been de-notified by the State Government by
invoking Section 101 of the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Settlement
Act, 2013 ("the 2013 Act").
6. It is further the case of the respondent no.7 that
against the judgment and decree dated 31.03.2016, passed in the
suit, the petitioner did file First Appeal No.51 of 2016, Shashank
Sharma vs. Indra Singh ("first appeal") in this Court, which has
been rejected under Order VII Rule 11(c) of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 ("CPC") vide judgment and order dated
16.12.2016. Thereafter, the appellant filed recall application for
recalling the judgment dated 16.12.2016, passed in the first appeal,
which was also rejected by this Court's order dated 27.11.2020.
This order dated 27.11.2020, passed in the first appeal, was
challenged by the appellant before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by
way of filing SLP (Civil) Diary No.14241 of 2021, Shashank Sharma
Vs. Inder Singh, which has been dismissed on 19.08.2021.
Therefore, it is the case of the respondent no.7 that the appellant
has no locus in the case.
7. After filing the counter affidavit the appellant filed an
amendment application and sought to add certain grounds with the
additional prayer so as to challenge the notification dated
19.12.2019, by which, the land was de-notified under Section 101
of the 2013 Act.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that
during the pendency of the writ petition, when counter affidavit was
filed by the respondents, it has come to the notice of the appellant
that the land has already been de-notified under Section 101 of
2013 Act. Therefore, the amendment is necessary for just disposal
of the case.
9. On the other hand, learned State Counsel would
submit that the appellant has no locus to file the writ petition even
the land has already been transferred by virtue of a sale-deed in
favour of the respondent no.7, pursuant to the judgment and
decree passed in the suit, which has been confirmed up to the
Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore, the appellant has no
locus/interest left in the land.
10. Learned counsel for the respondent no.7 would submit
that he had entered into an agreement to purchase the land and
when the land was not sold to him, he had filed the suit, which was
decreed on 31.03.2016, against which, the first appeal was
dismissed with costs and subsequently, the SLP has already been
dismissed. He submits that the appellant has not come up with
clean hands; on the one hand, post execution of the decree passed
in the suit, he has received Rs.2,57,50,000/- and on the other
hand, now, he is pursuing for compensation. Therefore, he has no
locus and, in fact, the appeal deserves to be dismissed.
11. The appellant claims his rights on the land. The fact
remains that with regard to the land, the respondent no.7 had filed
a suit, which was decreed on 31.03.2016. The petitioner was not
unaware of it. He was party in the suit. He challenged the judgment
and decree dated 31.03.2016, passed in the suit and challenged it
in the first appeal, which was rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(c) of
CPC. An application to recall that order was also rejected. The
things did not stop here. The appellant challenged the order passed
in the first appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court on 19.08.2021 dismissed the SLP. It may be noted
that in the first appeal, the application of the appellant was rejected
with Rs.10,000/- costs.
12. The land has already been transferred in favour of the
respondent no.7 by the operation of law, by the judgment and
decree passed in the suit, which was confirmed in the first appeal
as well as by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore, in fact, the
appellant has no claim with regard to the land. Accordingly, the
appeal deserves to be dismissed and at the same time, since the
appellant has no interest left in the matter qua the land, the writ
petition also deserves to be dismissed as keeping the writ petition
pending would be nothing, but abuse of the process of law.
13. The appeal as well as the writ petition is dismissed.
(Alok Mahra, J.) (Ravindra Maithani, J.)
26.08.2025
Sanjay
SANJAY
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=e50e50b49596520698eff87e0a08bbd
504686df4d1afc60f54a287831dec46fe,
KANOJIA
postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=26EEB7122ED0DD23233A255D
D8EC450A84B515A087CAEFD1B3179A7DEAE
40699, cn=SANJAY KANOJIA
Date: 2025.08.28 10:57:08 +05'30'
