Uttarakhand High Court
Gulam Rasool Alias Gami vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 24 February, 2025
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition No. 531 of 2025 (M/S)
Gulam Rasool alias Gami ..........Petitioner
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and others ........ Respondents
Present : Mr. Karthik Jayashankar, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Anil Dabral, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the
State/respondents.
JUDGMENT
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
By means of the instant petition, the petitioner
seeks the following reliefs:-
"a) ISSUE a writ, order or direction quashing the order
02.03.2017 issued by Respondent No.2 to the extent
that it erroneously declared that Plot No.650, Gujjar
Basti, P.O. Gaindikhata, P.S. Shyampur, District
Haridwar, Uttarakhand - 246763, was never allotted to
the Petitioner's grandfather, Late Mr. Lal Sain, and that
the Petitioner was not entitled to reside and cultivate
therein by virtue of being his legal heir;
b) ISSUE as writ, order or direction directing the
Respondents to allow the petitioner to continue
residing and cultivating the subject Plot No.650;
c) AWARD the costs to the petitioner; and
d) PASS any other order that this Hon'ble Court may
deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record.
3. In fact, earlier the petitioner has filed WPMS
No.3206 of 2016, Gulam Rasool vs. State of Uttarakhand
and others ("the first petition"), seeking the following
relief:-
"I. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature
of Mandamus commanding and directing the
respondent authorities to record petitioner as the
owner of the property of plot no.650, Area 10 bigha
situated at Gujjar Basti, P.O. Gaindikhata, P.S.
shyampur, District-Haridwar on the basis of the will of
his grandfather, Lal Sain and allow the petitioner to
sear the crops on his possession and further restrain
respondent no.5, Suleman from interfering in the
peaceful possession of the petitioner."
4. The first petition was rejected by the Court on
14.12.2016. In the first petition, it was also argued on
behalf of the petitioner that he is owner of the property-
in-question and the respondent is duty bound to consider
the claim of the petitioner. But, the Court had given
liberty to the petitioner. In para 4 of the judgment dated
14.12.2016, the Court observed as follows:-
"4. This court is of the considered view that prayer
made by the petitioner cannot be allowed in writ
jurisdiction. But, considering the statement of learned
counsel for the parties, the writ petition is disposed of by
permitting the petitioner to file a representation before the
respondent no. 2. Petitioner shall also file the required
document showing his ownership over the land
in question. In case, such representation is filed within a
period of one month from today, the same shall be
considered and decided by the respondent no. 2 within a
period of three months thereafter."
5. Pursuant to the judgment, passed in the first
petition, the petitioner made a representation to the
respondent no.2, but the representation was rejected on
02.03.2017, which is Annexure No.15 to the writ petition.
In that rejection order, the respondent no.2 has recorded
that, in fact, plot no.650 was never allotted to Lal Sain. It
was proposed to be allotted to him, but before it could be
allotted, he died. Therefore, the allotment was not made.
The order dated 02.03.2017, at para no.8, the respondent
no.2 records that, in fact, the petitioner also claimed right
on plot nos.650 on the basis of a will of Lal Sain, but it
records that since the plot no.650 was never allotted to
Lal Sain, there was no question of any right having being
accrued to the petitioner.
6. The Court wanted to know from the learned
counsel for the petitioner, as to how successive petitions
can be filed for the same relief? He would refer to
Annexure No.7 to the writ petition, which is a
communication dated 28.11.2015, by respondent no.3, to
argue that by this communication dated 28.11.2015
allotment of plot no.650 was made in favour of the
grandfather of the petitioner, Lal Sain. This argument is
not correct. Annexure No.7 does not allot any land to the
grandfather of the petitioner, Lal Sain. In fact, what it
records is that the plot no.650 was proposed to be allotted
to Lal Sain. It does not record that the plot had already
been allotted to Lal Sain and if it is read with Annexure
No.15, the order on representation passed by the
respondent no.2 on 02.03.2017, it is crystal clear that
before allotment could be made, Lal Sain died, and
allotment was not made.
7. The petitioner had once filed a writ petition
which has been decided. The petitioner's representation
has been decided subsequently with a detailed reasoned
order, which records that the plot no.650 was never
allotted to Lal Sain. The petitioner could not derive any
right on the plot from Lal Sain. Therefore, this Court does
not see any reason to entertain the instant petition.
Accordingly, the petition deserves to be dismissed at the
stage of admission itself.
8. The petition is dismissed in limine.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
24.02.2025
Sanjay
