[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
Lovepreet Singh And Another ... vs State Of Uttarakhand on 25 March, 2026
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
2026:UHC:2111
Office Notes,
reports, orders or
SL. proceedings or
Date COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No. directions and
Registrar's order
with Signatures
WPMS No.665 of 2026
Lovepreet Singh and another ............Petitioners
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand
and others ..........Respondents
With
WPMS No.667 of 2026
Rajvinder Kaur and another .........Petitioners
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand
and others ..........Respondents
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
Mr. Atul Kumar Bansal, learned counsel for the
petitioners.
2. Mr. Suyash Pant, learned S.C. and Ms. Swati
Verma, learned B.H. for the State.
3. Since common questions of fact and law are
involved in these petitions, therefore, these petitions
are clubbed together and decided by this common
judgment. However, for the sake of brevity and
convenience, facts of WPMS No.665 of 2026 alone are
being considered and discussed.
4. According to learned counsel for the petitioner,
he is a landless person, who was allotted a piece of
agricultural land declared surplus in proceedings
under U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings
Act, 1960, vide order dated 13.01.2006. Grievance
raised by petitioner is that his name is not being
recorded in Category 1 kha i.e. Bhumidhar with non-
transferable right.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon
Section 131(d) of Uttarakhand Zamidari Abolition and
Land Reforms Act, 1950 in support of his contention
2026:UHC:2111
that every person, with whom surplus land is settled,
is entitled to be recorded as Bhumidhar with non-
transferable right. Section 131(d) of the aforesaid
Statute is quoted below:-
"131. Bhumidhar with nontransferable
rights.- (d) with effect from July 1, 1981 every person
with whom surplus land is or has been settled under
26A or sub-section (3) of Section 27 of the U.P.
Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960."
6. Learned State Counsel, however, refers to
Annexure no. 4 to the writ petition, where allotment
order, issued in favour of petitioner, is enclosed. In
the said document, reference is made to Section 25 of
U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960
for making allotment.
7. Learned State Counsel submits that power
under Section 25 of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on
Land Holdings Act, 1960 is available to State
Government for using the surplus land for any
purpose for which such land could have been
acquired and State can invoke this power to retain
the land for public purpose/construction of building
etc. He further submits that surplus land can be
settled in favour of weaker sections of society only
under Section 27(3) of the Act. Sections 25 and 27(3)
of the Act are reproduced below for ready reference:-
"25. Use of surplus land for other public
purposes. - The State Government may, instead of
settling any surplus land in accordance with the
provisions of this Act, use or permit the use either
temporarily or permanently of the whole or any
portion of such land for any purpose for which such
land could have been acquired under the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894.
27(3) (3) Any remaining surplus land shall be
2026:UHC:2111
settled by the any Collector in accordance with the
order of preference, and subject to the limits,
specified respectively in 3 subsections (1) and (3) of
Section 198 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition
and Land Reforms Act, 1950."
8. Learned State Counsel submits that since a
wrong provision was invoked while issuing the
allotment order in favour of petitioner, the Revenue
Authorities are facing difficulty in making entry of
name of petitioner in the Revenue records. Learned
State Counsel further submits that as per provisions
contained in Land Record Manual, the land declared
as surplus under Ceiling Act, is to be recorded as
4(ka) in Revenue Record and if such land is allotted to
some person, then name of such person is entered as
4(ka)(ka) in the Revenue Record.
9. Learned counsel for the State further submitted
that the writ petitions WPMS Nos.28 of 2026 and 30
of 2026, involving the same controversy have been
made partly heard by a Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court. Therefore these writ petitions may also be
transferred before the same Bench.
10. The orders passed by the Co-ordinate Bench
have also been supplied by the State counsel.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioners also relied
upon the judgment and order passed by a Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court in WPMS No.3367 of
2025, wherein the petitioners to that writ petition
were granted opportunity to make representation(s)
and a direction was made to decide the
representation(s), in accordance with law within a
stipulated period.
2026:UHC:2111
12. I have perused the orders passed by the Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court.
13. This Court feels that the orders passed by
Hon'ble Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari has only
directed the competent authority to decide the
representation, in accordance with law; therefore, this
Court is of the opinion that it will not make any kind
of difference, if such order is passed by this Court, in
this batch of writ petitions.
14. The writ petitions are, accordingly, disposed of
with liberty to the petitioners to make separate
representation(s)/application(s) to District Magistrate,
Udham Singh Nagar, for correction of the provision
invoked for allotment of land to them. If such
representation(s) is made within two weeks from
today, District Magistrate shall examine the matter
and pass appropriate order, within eight weeks
thereafter. Stake holders, if any, shall also be heard
while taking any decision in the matter.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
25.03.2026
SK
