Uttarakhand High Court

SPA/449/2017 on 13 May, 2025

Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari

Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari

                                                                     2025:UHC:3821-DB
              Office Notes,
             reports, orders
             or proceedings
SL.
      Date    or directions                 COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
             and Registrar's
               order with
               Signatures
                               SPA No.449 of 2017
                               Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.

Hon'ble Ashish Naithani, J.

Mr. Akib Ahmed, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Pankaj Miglani, learned counsel for the appellant.

2. Mr. K.N. Joshi, learned Deputy Advocate General for State of Uttarakhand.

3. This intra court appeal is directed against the judgment dated 20.07.2017 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (M/S) No.1436 of 2017. By the said judgment writ petition filed by petitioner (appellant herein) seeking direction to the respondents not to remove/demolish his dwelling house was dismissed. Operative portion of the impugned judgment is reproduced below:-

"2. This Court has been apprised by the learned State Counsel that the land in question though is within the territory of Uttarakhand and it belongs to the State of Uttarakhand, but presently it is under the management of U.P. Irrigation Department and the management also vests with the State of U.P. under the provisions of the U.P. Reorganization Act.

3. The petitioners have not been able to show any title which is better than either State of Uttarakhand or the State of U.P. Consequently, no relief can be given to the petitioners.

4. All the writ petitions stand dismissed."

2025:UHC:3821-DB

4. We are not inclined to interfere in the impugned judgment. Admittedly, the writ petitioner (appellant herein), do not have any evidence in support of his contention that he is the owner of the land in question.

5. Learned State Counsel for respondents submits that land in question belongs to Irrigation Department. Law is well settled that adverse possession howsoever long, does not create any right over a Government land. Thus, we do not find any reason to interfere with impugned judgment. The special appeal fails and is dismissed.

(Ashish Naithani, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 13.05.2025 Arti ARTI SINGH Digitally signed by ARTI SINGH DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=487ed955e722ba65aab55409e686c12fb83a19325e8b66890fbee418e7b69c0d, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=26DC90E00D839E3E8714131F235087D2D87E133C57E7F4A7B2E734BE2521F982, cn=ARTI SINGH Date: 2025.05.14 12:21:18 +05'30'