Uttarakhand High Court
WPMS/2508/2025 on 27 August, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
Office Notes, reports, orders or
SL. proceedings or directions and
Date COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No Registrar's order with
Signatures
WPMS No.2508 of 2025
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
Mr. Yogesh Pandey, learned counsel for the
petitioners.
2. Mr. S.K. Nainwal, learned Standing Counsel for
the State.
3. By means of present writ petition, petitioners have
put to challenge the order dated 23.07.2025 passed by
Commissioner, Kumaon Mandal, Nainital in Appeal
No.1 of 2020-21, State through Collector, U.S. Nagar
vs. respondents, whereby the name of petitioners have
been directed to be removed from the Khatoni of Fasli
of 1430-1435, Khasra No.00108, Khasra No.67/2
admeasuring 0.345 hectare and Khasra No.202
admeasuring 0.160 hectare and directed the State
Government to take possession of the said land.
4. It is the case of the petitioners that the aforesaid
land was allotted to one Late Shri Shyam Nath
(husband of petitioner no.1 and father of petitioner
nos.2 to 4) and the possession of the said land was
granted in the year 1997.
5. He further submits that, from the impugned
order, it transpires that with regard to Plot No. 67/2,
measuring 0.345 hectare of Khatoni Khasra No.
001081 for Fasli years 1430-1435, a finding has been
recorded on the basis of the report submitted by the
Tehsildar that the petitioners are in possession of the
said land, and that a sugarcane crop was shown by the
petitioners. However, with respect to Plot No. 202,
measuring 0.160 hectare of the aforesaid Khatoni
Khasra, the Tehsildar's report states that the land is
not in the possession of the petitioners/leaseholders.
Rather, various individuals--namely, Sher Singh (son
of Anoop Singh), Guljar Singh (son of Anoop Singh),
Shriram (son of Kashiram), Abrar Ahmed (son of Nasir
Ahmed), Sanjay (son of Chandra Shekhar), and Manoj
Joshi (son of Nanda Ballabh)--have constructed their
residential houses on the said land, and according to
their statements, they have been residing there for the
past 30 to 40 years.
7. It is contended by the learned counsel for the
petitioners that, despite the aforesaid report, the
Commissioner, Kumaon Mandal, by the impugned
judgment and order, directed the petitioners to be
evicted from both the plots in-question, and further
directed that the lease (Patta) granted to them be set-
aside.
8. Per contra, the learned State Counsel submits
that the entire land comprised in both plot numbers
was given on lease (Patta) to the petitioners'
predecessor; however, the land comprising Plot No.
202, measuring 0.160 hectare, was sold by them to the
individuals who have constructed houses thereon.
9. Since the report of the District Magistrate on
record prima facie appears to be contrary to the report
of the Tehsildar, which was relied upon by the learned
Commissioner, Kumaon Mandal, while passing the
impugned order, therefore, the argument advanced by
the learned State Counsel is prima facie rejected at this
stage.
10. Issue notice to the respondent nos.2 to 7,
returnable within six weeks.
11. Steps to be taken within seven days.
12. Respondents shall file detailed counter affidavit in
the matter within six weeks.
13. List on 10.11.2025.
14. Till the next date of listing, it is directed that
petitioners shall not be evicted from the land
comprising in Plot No.67/2 admeasuring 0.345 hectare
of Fasli Khatoni 1430-1435 of Village Nazimabad,
Tehsil Kichha, District Udham Singh Nagar.
15. Stay application (IA No.1/2025) stands disposed
of accordingly.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
27.08.2025
AK
