[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
Bijendra Pal Singh And Others ...... ... vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 23 February, 2026
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Special Appeal No. 01 of 2026
Bijendra Pal Singh and Others ...... Appellants
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and Others ..... Respondents
Present:
Mr. Siddhartha Singh, Advocate for the appellants.
Mr. Birendra Singh Adhikari, Advocate for the respondent no.5.
Mr. J.C. Pande, Standing Counsel for the respondent nos. 1, 2 and 4/State.
Mr. Vipul Sharma, Advocate for the respondent no.3, through video
conferencing.
Coram: Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J.
Hon'ble Ashish Naithani, J.
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
The instant appeal has been preferred against
judgment and order dated 10.12.2025, passed by this Court in
WPMS No.3355 of 2025, Bijendra Pal Singh and Others Vs. State
and Others ("the writ petition"). In the writ petition, the petitioner
had sought the following reliefs:-
(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in nature of
mandamus commanding the official
respondents to transfer 75 Acre of land to
respondent no.6 for Phase V Housing Project,
illegally recorded in name of respondent no.3.
(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in nature of
mandamus directing the respondents no.1, 2
to hold the elections of respondent no.6,
expeditiously.
(iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in nature of
Mandamus directing respondent no.6 to allot
the plot numbers to the successful allottees
and to complete the formalities for delivery of
possession.
In the writ petition, by the impugned judgment,
the appellants have been directed to approach the Secretary,
Revenue, Government of Uttarakhand, by making a
representation for ventilation of their grievances. The Court
further observed that if the appellants make such representation
within two weeks from then, decision thereupon shall be taken
within six months thereafter, with the condition that all
stakeholders shall be heard by Secretary, Revenue before passing
any order.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the record.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that
the impugned judgment is not in accordance with law; the
respondent no.6, Bharat Heavy Electrical Limited, Haridwar
("BHEL"), Grah Nirman Samiti Limited ("the samiti"), has been
incorporated, and total 75 acres of land was to be transferred by
the respondent no.5, BHEL, but this has not been done; if any
action is to be taken by the State Government, the Court ought to
have directed the State Government straightway to do the needful,
but redirecting the appellants to the State Government by making
a representation would serve no purpose; the appellants have no
locus to represent before the State Government; they are members
of the samiti only, who would ultimately get the benefit of the land
allotment so as to construct houses.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent no.5, BHEL
submits that BHEL has already transferred 75 acres of land to the
State Government in the years 2003 and 2004, of which
possession has already given to the State Government, and these
documents were tendered at the time of hearing of the writ
petition. They have already been taken on record; the relief no. (i)
of the writ petition is to the effect that the land that has been
transferred by BHEL to the State has wrongly been entered in the
name of the State Infrastructure and Industrial Development
Corporation of Uttarakhand Limited ("SIDCUL"); if it is so, the
State Government may rectify the mistake and transfer the land in
the name of the samiti.
5. By the impugned judgment and order, the Court
has not concluded about the rights of the parties. In fact, they
were not in dispute when the matter was taken up for hearing on
10.12.2025. The claim of the appellants is that they are members
of the samiti, who are to be allotted lands, which is to be provided
by the BHEL. The impugned judgment records the statement
given by learned counsel for the BHEL that the 75 acres of land,
for the purpose of housing society, has already been transferred to
the State Government in the years 2003 and 2004, of which
records have been placed at the time of hearing. They are taken
on record. This has also been so quoted in Para No.4 of the
impugned judgment.
6. Now if the land, so transferred by the BHEL, has
inadvertently been recorded in the favour of SIDCUL, this may
definitely be clarified by the State Government. The Court could
have definitely asked the State Government to correct it, but then
the Court had given this liberty to the appellants to make a
representation. For this reason only, the impugned judgment may
not warrant any interference. The appellants may very well make
a representation to the Secretary, Revenue, Government of
Uttarakhand, so that he may take necessary action in the matter.
Insofar as the question of locus is concerned, the appellants get
locus by virtue of the Court's order dated 10.12.2025, passed in
the writ petition.
7. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that
liberty may be given to the appellants that in case they make a
representation and that is not decided in their favour, they may
further approach to the Court.
8. Undoubtedly, in case the appellants are aggrieved
by the decision taken on their representation, pursuant to the
judgment dated 10.12.2025, they are always free to challenge it
before the Court. The appellants may make such representation
within next three weeks from today.
9. Having considered, we do not see any reason to
interfere with the impugned judgment. Consequently, the appeal
deserves to be dismissed.
10. The appeal is dismissed with the above
observation.
(Ashish Naithani, J.) (Ravindra Maithani, J.)
23.02.2026
Ravi Bisht
