Karnail Singh And Others ... vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others
2026 Latest Caselaw 1531 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Karnail Singh And Others ... vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 26 February, 2026

                                                         2026:UHC:1379-DB
                            Judgment Reserved on:17.02.2026
                           Judgment Delivered on :26.02.2026
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA

                                 AND

   THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MR. SUBHASH UPADHYAY

                  Special Appeal No.355 of 2025

   Karnail Singh and Others                          -----Appellants

                                  Versus

   State of Uttarakhand and Others                   ----Respondents
   ----------------------------------------------------------------------
   Presence:-
   Mr. Siddhartha Singh, learned counsel for the appellants.
   Mr. Yogesh Chandra Tewari, learned Standing Counsel for the
   State of Uttarakhand.
   ----------------------------------------------------------------------
   JUDGMENT :

(per Mr. Subhash Upadhyay J.)

1. By the present intra-court appeal, the

appellants have assailed the judgment and order dated

08.10.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in

WPMS No.2056 of 2023 whereby writ petition filed by

the appellants/petitioners was dismissed.

2. The appellants claimed benefit of the

Government Order dated 18.07.2016 issued by the

State Government for regularization of certain category

of unauthorized occupants over the public land

recorded in revenue record as Class-IV Category. The

appellants had filed an application before the District

Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar for regularization of

2026:UHC:1379-DB the land comprising in Khasra No.448/1/1 and Khasra

No.448/3 admeasuring 4.018 hectare situated in

Village Khairna, Tehsil Sitarganj.

3. On the said application, a report was called

by the District Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar from the

Sub-Divisional Magistrate (S.D.M.), who stated that the

land in question, sought to be regularized by the

petitioners/appellants, is a water body, therefore, the

benefit of Government Order dated 18.07.2016 cannot

be given in view of Section 132 of the U.P. Zamindari

Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950 (for Short "U.P.

Z.A. & L.R. Act").

4. Against the said decision, the petitioners filed

the writ petition which was dismissed on 08.10.2025

and the said order is under challenge in the present

appeal.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits

that the land in occupation of the appellants is not a

water body and the report submitted to the said effect

by the authorities is factually incorrect. He refers to the

stand taken by the respondents in the counter affidavit

filed in the writ petition and contends that, as per the

averment made in the counter affidavit, the land is a

river side land and as such the provisions of Section

132 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 are not applicable.

2026:UHC:1379-DB

6. We had repeatedly asked the learned counsel

for the appellants to demonstrate through any

document the status of his land, however, learned

counsel for the appellants could not demonstrate any

document and placed reliance on a sarzra map to

contend that the land is not a riverbed land but a river

side land.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the State

submits that a detail counter affidavit was filed before

the writ court wherein it was specified that the

Government Order dated 18.07.2016, the benefit of

which was claimed by the appellants, itself clarified that

the land falling under Section 132 of the U.P. Z.A. &

L.R. Act, 1950 would not be regularized.

8. He further submits that vide order dated

12.07.2021 and 20.04.2023 the District Magistrate,

Udham Singh Nagar disposed of the application filed by

the appellants by a comprehensive and detailed order

on the basis of the fact finding report submitted by the

authorities.

9. We have heard learned counsel for the

parties and perused the record.

10. The Government Order dated 18.07.2016

clearly specifies that the land covered under Section

132 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 would not be

2026:UHC:1379-DB regularized. It further clarified that, in case a person is

in unauthorized occupation of such land covered Under

Section 132 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 then the

said person would first be evicted and only then his

case for regularization of other category-IV land would

be considered.

11. Sub-clause (1) and (2) of Clause-3 of the

said Government Order dated 18.07.2016 reads as

under:

"¼1½ tehankjh fouk'k ,oa Hkwfe O;oLFkk vf/kfu;e 1950 ¼mÙkjk[k.M esa ;Fkkço`Ùk½ dh /kkjk&132- ds vUrxZr vkus okyh Hkwfe ¼lkoZtfud mi;ksx tSls pdekxZ] ewy] [kfygku] dfczLrku] 'ke'kku?kkV] pkjkxkg vkfn½ dk fofu;ferhdj.k ugha fd;k tk;sxkA ¼2½ tehankjh fouk'k ,oa Hkwfe O;oLFkk vf/kfu;e] 1950 ¼mÙkjk[k.M esa ;Fkkço`Ùk½ dh /kkjk&132 ds vUrxZr vkus okyh Hkwfe ¼lkoZtfud mi;ksx tSls pdekxZ] ewy] [kfygku] dfczLrku] 'ke'kku?kkV] pkjkxkg vkfn½ ij ;fn voS/k dCtk ik;k tkrk gS rks mls igys [kkyh djk;k tk;sxk vkSj rc ml v/;klh @ iêsnkj dh vU; oxZ&4 dh Hkwfe dk fofu;ferhdj.k fd;k tk;sxkA"

12. The order dated 12.07.2021 categorically

mentions that the land in occupation of the appellants

is not fit for regularization. The appellants made an

application against the decision dated 12.07.2021 for

re-examination of the issue and again the S.D.M. was

asked to submit the report.

13. Further report of the S.D.M. again recorded in

clear terms that land sought to be regularized is a

riverbed land recorded as Category-15(4) in revenue

records and cannot be regularized.

2026:UHC:1379-DB

14. Learned Single Judge has dealt with the said

aspect in detail in paragraph nos. 7, 9, 12, 14, 15 and

16 which read as under:

"7. Perusal of the report dated 12.07.2021 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) reveals that Sub Divisional Magistrate, Khatima (Udham Singh Nagar) in his earlier report dated 07.12.2019 mentioned that the land in question is not fit for agriculture due to sand/ silt deposit. This report was accepted by the District Magistrate on 12.07.2021 and application made by petitioners for regularization was rejected. Petitioners thereafter made request to District Magistrate to get the land re-inspected. On their request, District Magistrate again asked the Sub Divisional Magistrate to submit a report. The Sub Divisional Magistrate in his report reiterated that the land sought to be regularized is riverbed land, recorded as Category-15 (4) in revenue record, therefore, it cannot be regularized in view of prohibition contained in Section 132 of Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act.

9. Learned State Counsel submits that in view of provision contained in Section 132 of Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and also in view of the law declared by Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of judgments, bhumidhari right cannot be given to anybody over riverbed/water body land. He further submits that petitioners have not indicated the extent/size of their land holding in the writ petition; unless they meet the eligibility conditions, they cannot claim regularization of their unauthorized occupation. Learned State Counsel by referring to the first report submitted by Sub Divisional Magistrate contained in Annexure-1 submits that earlier also, petitioners had applied in the year 2019 for regularization of their possession and the said application was also rejected by District Magistrate on 04.01.2020.

12. Bhumidhari right cannot be given over water body land, as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hinch Lal Tiwari v. Kamala Devi and others, reported as (2001) 6 SCC 496. Paragraph nos. 13 & 14 of the said judgment is reproduced below:

"13. It is important to notice that the material resources of the community like forests, tanks, ponds, hillock, mountain etc. are nature's bounty. They maintain delicate ecological balance. They need to be protected for a proper and healthy environment which enables people to enjoy a quality life which is the essence of the guaranteed right under Article

2026:UHC:1379-DB 21 of the Constitution. The Government, including the Revenue Authorities i.e. Respondents 11 to 13, having noticed that a pond is falling in disuse, should have bestowed their attention to develop the same which would, on one hand, have prevented ecological disaster and on the other provided better environment for the benefit of the public at large. Such vigil is the best protection against knavish attempts to seek allotment in non- abadi sites.

14. For the aforementioned reasons, we set aside the order of the High Court, restore the order of the Additional Collector dated 25-2- 1999 confirmed by the Commissioner on 12-3- 1999. Consequently, Respondents 1 to 10 shall vacate the land, which was allotted to them, within six months from today. They will, however, be permitted to take away the material of the houses which they have constructed on the said land. If Respondents 1 to 10 do not vacate the land within the said period the official respondents i.e. Respondents 11 to 13 shall demolish the construction and get possession of the said land in accordance with law. The State including Respondents 11 to 13 shall restore the pond, develop and maintain the same as a recreational spot which will undoubtedly be in the best interest of the villagers. Further it will also help in maintaining ecological balance and protecting the environment in regard to which this Court has repeatedly expressed its concern. Such measures must begin at the grassroot level if they were to become the nation's pride."

14. Petitioners question correctness of the report submitted by Sub Divisional Magistrate, however this Court do not find any inconsistency in the reports submitted by Sub Divisional Magistrate from time to time. Even otherwise also, issue of correctness of reports, cannot be gone into in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution.

15. This Court while exercising writ jurisdiction does not act as Court of Appeal. Scope of judicial review of administrative action is limited to examining the legality and fairness of the decision making process. In the case of Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and another v. Emta Coal Limited, reported as (2022) 2 SCC 1, Hon'ble Supreme Court has summarized the legal position on scope of judicial review in paragraph nos. 33 to 37, which are reproduced below:-

"33. It could thus be seen that while exercising powers of judicial review, the Court is not concerned with the ultimate decision but

2026:UHC:1379-DB the decision-making process. The limited areas in which the Court can enquire are as to whether a decision-making authority has exceeded its powers, committed an error of law or committed breach of principle of natural justice. It can examine as to whether an authority has reached a decision which no reasonable tribunal would have reached or has abused its powers. It is not for the Court to determine whether a particular policy or a particular decision taken in the fulfilment of that policy is fair. The Court will examine as to whether the decision of an authority is vitiated by illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety. While examining the question of irrationality, the Court will be guided by the principle of Wednesbury. While applying the Wednesbury principle, the Court will examine as to whether the decision of an authority is such that no authority properly directing itself on the relevant law and acting reasonably could have reached it.

34. Applying the aforesaid principle, it can clearly be seen that the decision of PSPCL dated 6-4-2018, cannot be questioned on the ground of illegality or procedural impropriety. The decision is taken in accordance with Section 11 of the said Act and after following the principle of natural justice. The limited area that would be available for attack is as to whether the decision is hit by the Wednesbury principle. Can it be said that the decision taken by the authority is such that no reasonable person would have taken it? No doubt, that the authority has also relied on Clause 12.4.1 of the Allotment Agreement, however, that is not the only ground on which the representation of EMTA is rejected. No doubt, that while considering EMTA's representation, PSPCL has referred to Clause 12.4.1 of the Allotment Agreement which requires the coal mines to be developed through contractors who were selected through a competitive bidding process, however, that is not the only ground on which the representation of EMTA is rejected. It will be relevant to refer to the following observations in the order passed by PSPCL dated 6-4-2018:

"Moreover, there is no reason why competitive bidding process for the purposes of eliciting the best operator be not preferred. Needless to mention that as the composition with respect to capital/revenue investment is altogether different, hence the bidding parameters have entirely changed."

35. It could thus be seen that PSPCL has decided to go in for competitive bidding

2026:UHC:1379-DB process for the purpose of eliciting the best operator. It has further noticed that the composition with respect to capital/revenue investment is altogether different. Hence, the bidding parameters have entirely changed. It has further referred to the decision of this Court wherein it has been held that the allotment should be through competitive bidding process. We ask a question to ourselves, as to whether the said reasoning can be said to be irrational or arbitrary. A policy decision to get the best operator at the best price, cannot be said to be a decision which no reasonable person would take in his affairs. In that view of the matter, the attack on the order/letter dated 6-4-2018, is without merit.

36. Insofar as the contention of Shri Rohatgi with regard to the huge investment being made by EMTA is concerned, the said Act itself provides remedy for seeking compensation apart from the other remedies that are available in law. In that view of the matter, we are not impressed with the arguments advanced in that behalf.

37. In the result, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana is unsustainable in law. The appeals are therefore allowed and the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dated 25-1-2019, is quashed and set aside. Pending IA(s), if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly."

16. In view of the aforesaid legal position, this Court do not find any reason to interfere with the decision taken by District Magistrate on the request made by petitioners for regularization of their unauthorized occupation over public land. In view of provision contained in Section 132 of Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950, bhumidhari right in respect of public utility land/water body cannot be conferred upon any person. The decision taken by the District Magistrate is based on factual reports submitted by Sub Divisional Magistrate and correctness of the report cannot be gone in writ proceedings."

15. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hinch

Lal Tiwari vs Kamala Devi And Ors reported in

(2001) 6 SCC 496 held that the material resources of

the community like forests, tanks, ponds, hillock,

2026:UHC:1379-DB mountain etc. are nature's bounty. They maintain

delicate ecological balance. They need to be protected

for a proper and healthy environment which enables

people to enjoy a quality life which is the essence of

the guaranteed right under Article 21 of the

Constitution.

16. The rejection of the claim of the appellants is

based on cogent reasons as the fact finding authority

has clearly recorded a finding that the land in

occupation of the appellant is a riverbed land and the

same cannot be regularized.

17. In view of the above discussion, we find no

good ground to interfere with the order passed by the

learned Single Judge. The special appeal fails and,

accordingly, the same is dismissed.

18. Pending application, if any, also stands

disposed of.

(MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, C. J.)

(SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.) Dated:26.02.2026 SS

SUKHBANT

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

2.5.4.20=71978f9c61bfde0ba69967c787b1764ea7bc7dd129 a8a6380d49b1885e628615, postalCode=263001,

SINGH st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=2D8B71B8D8E345F6B7F95B1DD4FB4BEBD2B 7D72C42261361AED33172F152148D, cn=SUKHBANT SINGH Date: 2026.02.27 10:15:43 +05'30'