Uttarakhand High Court
SA/66/1987 on 16 October, 2025
Author: Rakesh Thapliyal
Bench: Rakesh Thapliyal
Office Notes, reports,
orders or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions and COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No
Registrar's order with
Signatures
SA No. 66 of 1987
Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J.
1. Mr. Yogesh Tiwari, learned Standing Counsel for
the State/appellant.
2. Mr. D.S. Patni, learned senior counsel assisted by
Mr. Piyush Garg and Mr. Lalit Sharma, learned counsel
for the respondents.
3. In furtherance of the previous argument Mr. D.S.
Patni, learned senior counsel for the respondents,
argued that infact pursuant to notification dated
30.06.1969 Manohar Lal got the occupancy and
bhumidhari rights by virtue of Tarai and Bhabar Kham
Regulation 1948 and the entries were also made in the
revenue record, which are of 1365 fasli as occupancy
tenant and in the fasli year of 1383-1388 as Seerdar.
4. Apart from this, he argued that since Manohar
Lal got the occupancy and bhumidhari rights over the
land by virtue of various land reforms and these long
entries were never been corrected by any of the
revenue officials at any point of time and even their
possession was never been questioned, therefore, the
Collector committed grave illegality by expunging
entries that too without giving any notice and
opportunity by passing executive order.
5. In support of his argument Mr. D.S. Patni placed
reliance on the judgment of Allahabad High Court in
the case of Ram Anand Murao vs. State of U.P.
through Dy. Commissioner Faizabad and Others
reported in 1956 SCC Online Allahabad 6. In addition
to this, he also placed reliance in another judgment of
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Amba Prasad vs.
Mehboob Lal Shah and others reported in 1964 SCC
Online SC 330.
6. He further argued that since Manohar Lal got the
occupancy/bhumidhari right over the land in question
by virtue of various land reforms, therefore, the rights
accrued pursuant to the various Land Reforms Act will
prevail over the conditions of the lease.
7. In addition to this, he also placed reliance in
more judgment of Allahabad High Court in the case of
Harnam Singh vs. Amar Nath Ahuja 1979 SCC Online
All 717 by referring paragraph 6 which read as under:
"6. Construing the aforesaid terms, the lower appellate
court concluded that the mere fact that the permission
of the Deputy Administrator had not been obtained
does not have the legal effect of rendering the transfer
void ab initio. The proviso to clause 9 lays down the
consequence of the breach of a term of the lease. It says
that in the event of any breach or non observance of any
terms by the lessee it shall be lawful for the government
to enter into the demised premises and to resume
possession thereof. The breach of term of the lease, in
my judgment only gives an option to the government to
resume the demised premises. This is the only
consequence of the permission of the Deputy
Administrator not having been obtained before the
transfer of the leased property. In my view, the lower
appellate court is right in construing the terms of the
lease in arriving at the conclusion that the transfer in
favour of Amar Nath Ahuja was not void."
8. In addition to this, Mr. Piyush Garg also argued
that though the judgment and decree passed by the
Trial Court is perfectly correct but even otherwise the
decree can be modified by the Appellate Court under
Order 41 Rule 33 r/w Order 42 Rule 1.
9. Learned counsel for the respondents concluded
their arguments and now for their response Mr. Yogesh
Tiwari, learned Standing Counsel requests that the
matter be posted on 10.11.2025.
10. Put up this matter on 10.11.2025 at 2:15 PM.
(Rakesh Thapliyal, J.)
16.10.2025
PR
