Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 807 (UTT)

ANAND SINGH v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2012-12-28

SUDHANSHU DHULIA

body2012
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. 1. Heard Mr. Sudhir Kumar, Advocate for the petitioners, Mr. R.C. Arya, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand and Mr. T.P.S. Takuli, Advocate for respondent nos. 3 to 10. 2. In village Dhandha, Tehsil Kichcha, District Udham Singh Nagar, Uttarakhand, there are agricultural plots being plot No. 58A measuring 176 “bigha” and 13 “biswa” and Plot No. 58 C measuring 56 “bigha”. This land admittedly belongs to the State Government and is recorded in revenue records as category five (“Navin Prati”). Regarding this there is no dispute. According to the petitioners, their father was in possession of this land since 1950-5 1, although no evidence to this effect has been placed before this Court. Petitioners further state that neither their father nor they were ever evicted from this land and they are in peaceful possession of this land since the death of his father on 17.11.1985. The petitioners also contend that in the year 1975, the erstwhile Government of Uttar Pradesh (when Uttarakhand was a part of erstwhile State of Uttar Pradesh) formulated a scheme for regularization of unauthorizedly occupied public land. According to the scheme, the occupant had to pay certain amount as premium to the Government and upon such payment, the possession of the occupant was to be regularized and a “patta” or a lease was to be executed in his favour. 3. Admittedly the petitioners and even their father were unauthorized occupants on a State property. The fact remains that the land in question was never regularized in favour of the petitioners or their father. In fact as late as on 12.8.2005 the request of the petitioners for regularisation of such land in their favour was rejected by the Additional Collector, Udham Singh Nagar stating that the concerned land in Village Dhandha, Tehsil Kichcha, having Khasra No. 58A as well as 58C are recorded as category “five” land and this category of land cannot be regularized in their favour. 4. Subsequently, the petitioners also preferred a Writ Petition No. 1186 of 2005 (M/B) before this Court. In the said writ petition, a Division Bench of this Court held as under : “4. 4. Subsequently, the petitioners also preferred a Writ Petition No. 1186 of 2005 (M/B) before this Court. In the said writ petition, a Division Bench of this Court held as under : “4. In our opinion the land is agricultural land and the petitioners being unauthorized occupants over the land in question, Bhumidhar of which plot was Sri Maharaj Singh and it appears that Sri Maharaj Singh was P.C.S. Officer posted in the area and he got the land recorded in his name. Thereafter he allowed the petitioners to be in possession of the land in question. Petitioners are the sons of the Sri Maharaj Singh. It has been disputed by the State that the petitioners are the sons of Sri Maharaj Singh. However in the revenue records petitioners’ name were entered as unauthorized occupants and proceedings against Sri Maharaj Singh, who died in 1985, were pending. Thus it is proved that the land belonged to the State Government and no lease was granted to the petitioners under the Government Grants Act. Petitioners were unauthorized occupants of the land in question since the land was agricultural land, therefore, the suit was barred by Section 331 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. Thus the judgment and order passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nainital is without jurisdiction and void.” 5. All the same, the Division Bench while deciding the said writ petition on the plea of the petitioners that they have never been evicted, disposed of the petition by passing the following orders : “The petitioners claim themselves to be sons of Sri Maharaj Singh though it is denied by the State Government, the District Magistrate is directed to consider the application of the petitioners for regularization of the land within the ceiling limit treating Sri Maharaj Singh to be in unauthorized possession over the land in question, if the possession has not taken over in 1984 before his death. If there is any evidence that the possession was taken over from Sri Maharaj Singh prior to his death then the petitioners shall have no claim.” 6. Consequent to the said order, the District Magistrate/Collector, Udham Singh Nagar had passed a detail order on 16.9.2009 holding that the said land was taken away from the possession of the father of the petitioners, namely, Maharaj Singh on 25.6.1984 and consequently was recorded as category “five” in the revenue record (“Navin Prati”). Consequent to the said order, the District Magistrate/Collector, Udham Singh Nagar had passed a detail order on 16.9.2009 holding that the said land was taken away from the possession of the father of the petitioners, namely, Maharaj Singh on 25.6.1984 and consequently was recorded as category “five” in the revenue record (“Navin Prati”). 7. It is an admitted fact that the father of the before his death, the land had already been taken away from his possession and recorded in the revenue records as category “five”. Under these circumstances, there is no occasion for regularizing the land in question in favour of the petitioners. This was also what was directed by the Division Bench of this Court that in case there is any evidence that possession was taken over from Sri Maharaj Singh prior to his death then the petitioners shall have no claim. Hence, the respondent authority while disposing of the representation of the petitioners came to the conclusion that the petitioners have no right over the land in question as the possession was taken over from Sri Maharaj Singh, father of the petitioners, prior to his death. 8. There is another interesting element of this entire issue. The father of the petitioners Maharaj Singh who was earlier in possession of the land, or so he claimed, was admittedly a P.C.S. Officer in the State of Uttar Pradesh, when Uttarakhand was part of Uttar Pradesh. He and his descendents (i.e. the present petitioners) claim possession and consequently title on the basis of certain Government Orders in their favour on a land which is highly in excess to the ceiling limits. How could the authorities permit the petitioners and their father to be in possession of this land, while admittedly the land was in excess to the ceiling limits, is still a mystery. Though there is a document (Annexure No. 4 to the writ petition) dated 29.5.1984 annexed by the petitioners themselves, which is written by the Additional District Magistrate, Nainital to the Tehsildar, Kichcha, Nainital (at that time District Udham Singh Nagar was a part of District Nainital) where the subject is “Illegal work being done by a retired P.C.S. Officer in Kichcha”. The letter says that after enquiry it has been found that Maharaj Singh is in unauthorized occupation of 232 “bigha” 1 “biswa” of Government land at Thada Farm, Kichcha. The letter says that after enquiry it has been found that Maharaj Singh is in unauthorized occupation of 232 “bigha” 1 “biswa” of Government land at Thada Farm, Kichcha. Even though the court has passed the orders to evict the petitioners from the said land yet the possession has not been taken from them as yet. It further directs the Tehsildar and cautions him not to regularize the land, but keeping the present Government Orders and the law in mind immediately proceed to evict such person from the Government land and if need be take police help in the matter. It further states that the land which has been so taken away and which is in excess of ceiling must be given on “patta” to the eligible and for this the proceedings be initiated at the earliest. It appears that it was on the basis of this order that the petitioners and their father were finally evicted on 25.6.1984 as from the revenue records, it is clear that the State has taken possession of the property on 25.6.1984. 9. The State in its counter affidavit has reiterated the claim of the revenue authorities by saying that Maharaj Singh (father of the petitioners) was already evicted from the land on 25.6.1984 and there was absolutely no reason to regularize the land in favour of the petitioners. 10. While this petition was in progress, an impleadment application was also moved by certain applicants who have now been impleaded as respondent nos. 3 to 10 in the writ petition. According to these applicants, consequent to the land being taken away from the petitioners and after the land vested with the State Government, it was given to the landless labourers i.e. the applicants i.e. respondent nos. 3 to 10. However, they could not come in effective control of such land even though the “pattas” of State Government were in their favour, as they are being restrained and hindrance is being caused by the petitioners to the respondents in making any effective use of the said land. 11. Having heard the counsel for the petitioners Sri Sudhir Kumar, counsel for the State Sri R.C. Arya and the counsel appearing for the applicants Sri T.P.S. Takuli, this Court is clearly of the view that the prayer of the petitioners for regularisation of the land in their favour has absolutely no force. 11. Having heard the counsel for the petitioners Sri Sudhir Kumar, counsel for the State Sri R.C. Arya and the counsel appearing for the applicants Sri T.P.S. Takuli, this Court is clearly of the view that the prayer of the petitioners for regularisation of the land in their favour has absolutely no force. In fact it is the opinion of this Court that the father of the petitioner being a P.C.S. officer had applied undue pressure on the State officials and the revenue authorities regarding the land in question. The land being category “five” land (“Navin Prati”) cannot be regularized in favour of the petitioners. In fact, the land has already been given to the landless labourers. The petitioners have absolutely no claim on the said land. Writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. 12. The District Magistrate/Collector, Udham Singh Nagar and the Commissioner, Kumaon Division, Uttarakhand are hereby directed that in case any obstruction is being caused by the petitioners or their agents, it should be removed, using police force if required and in case the land has already been allotted amongst others i.e. present respondent nos. 3 to 10, ensure that they are put to effective control of the said property. Needful be done within one month from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the State authorities. The Registrar General is also directed to convey this order to the District Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar as well as the Commissioner, Kumaon Division, Uttarakhand. 13. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 14. No order as to costs.