Uttarakhand High Court

WPMS/1462/2025 on 6 June, 2025

Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari

Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari

                                                                               2025:UHC:4607
                Office Notes,
             reports, orders or
SL.           proceedings or
      Date                                      COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.            directions and
             Registrar's order
              with Signatures
                                  WPMS/1462/2025

                                  Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J

                                       Mr. Rajyavardhan Chaudhary & Mr.
                                  Hardik Sah, Advocates for the petitioner.
                                  2.   Mr. Puran Singh Bisht, Additional Chief
                                  Standing      Counsel         for      the     State         of
                                  Uttarakhand / respondent nos. 1 to 3.

3. Ms. Anjali Bhargava, Advocate for respondent no. 4.

4. By means of this writ petition, petitioner has sought the following relief:-

"i. Issue a writ, order, rule or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondent No. 3. i.e. Assistant Collector Ist Class ("SDM") to place the petitioner back to possession of the property in question forthwith."

5. According to petitioner, he filed a declaratory suit under Section 229B of Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, before Assistant Collector, 1st Class Kichha, District Udham Singh Nagar. There was an interim order passed in favour of petitioner that he shall not be dispossessed till final decision of the suit, however, during pendency of the suit, petitioner was dispossessed from the land in question, without prior notice.

6. Learned State Counsel was asked to get instructions. On instructions, learned State Counsel submits that the declaratory 2025:UHC:4607 suit filed by petitioner was decided against him, as it was found that petitioner was put in possession by some other person, who was allotted land for agricultural purpose under Government Grants Act. Learned State Counsel submits that the allotment made in favour of predecessor-in-interest of petitioner was non-transferable. He further submits that since petitioner could not prove his case before learned Assistant Collector, therefore, his declaratory suit was dismissed. He further submits that petitioner has no business to remain on Government land, which is to be used for public purpose.

7. This Court do not find any reason to grant the relief, as prayed for. No one can be permitted to occupy a Government land.

8. Learned counsel for petitioner then submitted that petitioner be given liberty to challenge the judgment rendered by Assistant Collector. There is no need for grant of liberty, as the petitioner is always free to approach the higher forum against the judgment rendered by Assistant Collector.

9. With the aforesaid observation, writ petition stands disposed of.

(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J) 06.06.2025 Navin

NAVEEN

DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH

2.5.4.20=3be23325146e76a0642bdf4943fb9046f487df006 da82a131bb4e4403d3c0a15, postalCode=263001,

CHANDRA st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=18167EEFB5CA8CFFD421A103819DA87564 3AF56D653D095C6ED9A86DAAB21CE5, cn=NAVEEN CHANDRA Date: 2025.06.07 11:17:52 +05'30'