Uttarakhand High Court
WPMS/2696/2025 on 19 September, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
Office Notes,
reports, orders or
SL. proceedings or
Date COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No directions and
Registrar's order
with Signatures
WPMS No.2696 of 2025
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
Mr. Balvinder Singh, Advocate for the petitioners.
2. Mr. Anil K. Dabral, Additional C.S.C. with Mr. Sundhir
Nainwal, S.C. for the State.
3. Ms. Anjali Bhargava, Advocate for respondent no.3.
4. This writ petition has been filed under Article 227 of
the Constitution of India by the petitioners, whereby they
have challenged the judgment and order dated 23.09.2008,
passed by the learned Tehsildar/Assistant Collector,
Roorkee, Haridwar in Case No. 10 of 2005-06 (Annexure No.
4 to the writ petition), by which the petitioners' father-
Harpal Singh was evicted from the land found to be in his
unauthorized occupation. The petitioners have also
challenged the judgment and order dated 20.11.2024,
passed by the learned Collector, District Haridwar in
Revision No. 120 of 2008-09 (Annexure No. 1 to the writ
petition), whereby the revision petition against the order
dated 23.09.2008 was rejected and the order passed by the
learned Tehsildar/Assistant Collector was affirmed.
5. From a perusal of the record, it transpires that the
petitioners' father-Harpal Singh was found in unauthorized
possession of land comprised in Plot No. 242/2, measuring
0.302 hectare, situated in Village Palooni, Roorkee,
Haridwar. A notice was issued to him by the learned
Tehsildar/Assistant Collector, Roorkee, Haridwar on
07.04.2005, calling upon him to show cause as to why he
should not be evicted from the aforesaid land.
6. The Late Harpal Singh submitted a written reply to the
notice issued by the learned Tehsildar/Assistant Collector,
Roorkee, Haridwar, contending that the notice was illegal
and liable to be quashed. He further submitted that the
boundaries of Plot No. 242/2 (measuring 0.302 hectare)
were not specified in the notice; the land does not belong to
the Gram Sabha; and that an old orchard stands on the
said land.
7. The learned Tehsildar/Assistant Collector, Roorkee,
Haridwar considered the submissions made by the father of
the petitioners and found his possession of the land in-
question unauthorized and illegal. Accordingly, the
petitioners' father-Harpal Singh was directed to be evicted
from the said property vide judgment and order dated
23.09.2008.
8. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment and order, the
petitioners' father-Harpal Singh filed Revision No. 120 of
2008-09, titled Harshpal Singh and Others vs. State and
Others.
9. The learned Collector, Haridwar, considered the
submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner and
found no merit in the revision, which was accordingly
rejected vide judgment and order dated 20.11.2024.
10. It appears that during the pendency of the revision,
the petitioners' father-Harpal Singh attempted to file an
application for spot inspection and measurement. However,
this was found to be a delaying tactic and was not
entertained by the revisional court.
11. Aggrieved by the aforementioned judgments and
orders, the petitioners have approached this Court.
12. I have perused the reply submitted by the counsel for
the petitioners father-Harpal Singh in response to the notice
dated 07.04.2005 issued by the learned Assistant Collector,
Roorkee.
13. In the entire reply, there is no explanation as to how
the petitioners' father-Harpal Singh came into possession of
the aforesaid property or what legal right he claims to have
possession over the said land.
14. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued
that the judgment and order passed by the Tehsildar,
Roorkee, Haridwar, does not mention the designation of the
Assistant Collector, and therefore the impugned order was
without jurisdiction, as the Tehsildar has no authority
under Section 122-B of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950.
15. I have considered this argument. The notice was
issued by the learned Assistant Collector/Tehsildar,
Roorkee, Haridwar, and hence the petitioner cannot take
advantage of a mere typographical error of the designated
authority in the judgment. The argument raised by the
counsel for the petitioners is devoid of merit and is
accordingly rejected.
16. The petitioners have no case. The writ petition is
accordingly dismissed in limine.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
19.09.2025
SK
