Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 296 (UTT)

DEVKI NANDAN PANDEY v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2013-06-10

V.K.Bist

body2013
JUDGMENT Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. Present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners for the following reliefs:- “(a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the orders dated 17.11.1998, 11.10.2000 & 04.11.2009 passed by the respondents (annexure no. 2,3 & 4). (b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to give effect to the orders dated 17.11.1998, 11.10.2000 & 04.09.2009 passed by the respondents (annexure no. 2, 3 & 4) and permit to sell and purchase the land. (c) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to acquire the land of the petitioners for any construction of Govt. Department. (d) Issue any other order or direction which this Hon’ble High Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. (e) Award cost of the petition to the petitioner.” 2. Heard Mr. M.S. Pal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Amir Mallick, Advocate for the petitioners and Mr. R.C. Arya, Standing Counsel for the State/respondents and perused the record. 3. As far as prayer number (c) is concerned, no directions can be issued to the Government for not acquiring the land of the petitioners for the construction of government building. The land of an individual can be acquired by the State Government in accordance with law. The State Government can also take the land of any individual by purchasing the same from its owner. Therefore, relief (c) is rejected. 4. In the present case, on 17.11.1998, the District Magistrate, Champawat passed an order by which he modified the earlier order dated 17.10.1997 by which restrictions were imposed for sale and purchase of land within 8 k.m. periphery of Champawat market. Such restriction imposed on sale and purchase of land was lifted but with the exception of 500 metres peripheral land at Srikhand Chaur, Dungra Sethi for construction of District Offices, 500 metres peripheral land at Fular Gaon for construction of Degree College, 500 metres peripheral land around the 10 km. land owned by State Govt. at Khark Kaki and 500 metre peripheral land from Chattarput to Gauri for construction of Jail and Police Line. Restriction imposed on other land was removed vide order dated 11.10.2000 and same was modified and peripheral area was reduced from 500 metres to 250 metres. land owned by State Govt. at Khark Kaki and 500 metre peripheral land from Chattarput to Gauri for construction of Jail and Police Line. Restriction imposed on other land was removed vide order dated 11.10.2000 and same was modified and peripheral area was reduced from 500 metres to 250 metres. Again on 4th September, 2009, the District Magistrate, 3 Champawat passed another order by which the restrictions imposed on sale and purchase of land was removed with immediate effect except in respect of Field Nos. 1316, 1319, 1320 of Khata No. 9 with a total area of 6 Nali 14 Muthi, situated at Village Punethi for construction of residential complex for district level officers and offices of the Revenue Department and 2 metres land on either side of the road constructed between Districts Offices at Srikhand Chaur Village Dungra Sethi to Chattarpul and the road linking Chattarpul to Residential Complex of the District level Officers and Officers of the Revenue Department. 5. Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners submitted that since the year 1999 they are neither able to sell their land nor purchase land of other persons, which has been restricted by these orders. Submission of learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners is that the District Magistrate has no power to impose such restrictions. On the other hand, Mr. R.C. Arya, learned Standing Counsel for the State referred Section 14 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 and submitted that by this Section, the Collector has been given the power to discharge all the duties conferred and imposed on him by the Act or any other law for the time being in force. 6. I have considered the rival arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. I find the submission of learned counsel for the State as misconceived. As per Section 14 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, the District Magistrate can exercise only those powers and exercise only such duties which are conferred and imposed on him by the Act and by any other law for the time being in force. Section 14 of U.P. Land Revenue Act is quoted hereunder:- “14. As per Section 14 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, the District Magistrate can exercise only those powers and exercise only such duties which are conferred and imposed on him by the Act and by any other law for the time being in force. Section 14 of U.P. Land Revenue Act is quoted hereunder:- “14. Collector of the district:- The State Government shall appoint in each district an officer who shall be the Collector of the district, and who shall throughout his district, exercise all the powers and discharge all the duties conferred and imposed on a Collector by this Act or any other law for the time being in force.” 7. Learned Standing Counsel for the State failed to show any document by which power for imposing restriction on sale of the land has been conferred on the District Magistrate. District Magistrate has no power to impose ban on sale of land unless he is authorised by law to do so. Learned Standing Counsel could also not show any provision of law authorising the District Magistrate to impose ban on sale of land. Learned Standing Counsel, however, submitted that process is being started for acquiring the said land. Power of the State Govt. to acquire land is there and any land can be acquired in accordance with law. I also do not find anything on record which could show that for the last about 14 years any step was taken for the acquisition of the land in question. Action of the District Magistrate, Champawat by restricting a person from selling his land for more than a decade is not only unreasonable but is also arbitrary and illegal. The District Magistrate has no power to restrict a person, who is owner of the land, from selling his land to any other person. Similarly, no restrictions can be imposed by the District Magistrate on a person from purchasing a land from other person unless law prohibits such sale or purchase. Thus, the orders dated 17.11.1998, 11.10.2000 and 04.09.2009 passed by the District Magistrate, Champawat are without jurisdiction and same are quashed. 8. The writ petition is partly allowed. No order as to costs. 9. Interim relief application (CLMA No. 8692/2009) also stands disposed of.