Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 391 (UTT)

Kesar Enterprises Ltd. v. State of Uttarakhand

2016-07-26

U.C.DHYANI

body2016
JUDGMENT : U.C. Dhyani, J. 1. By means of present writ petition, the petitioner seeks following reliefs, among others: “(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 02.09.2015 passed by respondent no.3 in Ceiling Case No. 51/01 of 2012-13 State vs. Kesar Sugar Works Ltd. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no.1 to accept petitioner’s request for consolidation of fragmented land in village Khurpia released in favour of petitioner.” 2. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the controversy involved in the present matter is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by the coordinate bench of this Court in Writ Petition (M/S) No.1888 of 2013, titled as M/s Kesar Sugar Works Limited vs. State of Uttarakhand & others on 23.04.2014. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner apprised this Court that M/s Kesar Sugar Works Limited is now known as M/s Kesar Enterprises Limited. 3. It will be useful to reproduce relevant paras of the aforesaid judgment, which are as follows: “The main contention has been raised by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is that the Prescribed Authority, Udham Singh Nagar determined the area after the dismissal of writ petition on 16.02.2013 and the alleged possession according to the State was taken on 07.11.2012. Therefore, before determination of the area of surplus land, the Prescribed Authority could not take possession of the land and before taking possession CLH-6 was to be issued to the tenure holder. Since the surplus area of the land was determined by the Prescribed Authority on 16.02.2013 and the possession which was alleged to be taken i.e. prior to the order of the Ceiling Authority. Therefore, the State could not take possession prior to determination of surplus area that too in accordance with law as per provision of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holding Act, 1960. It is admitted case that form CLH6 was not issued in case at hand. The petitioner was having a right of choice in view of Section 12-A of Act prior to taking over the possession of surplus land. Till today no notification was made under Section 14(4) in respect of possession of the land, therefore, application under Section 12-A for choice can be maintained. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside and writ petition is allowed. Till today no notification was made under Section 14(4) in respect of possession of the land, therefore, application under Section 12-A for choice can be maintained. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside and writ petition is allowed. The application moved by the petitioner under Section 12-A is also allowed. The land be given to the petitioner in village Bandia as far as possible in a compact area and the possession be taken from the petitioner of the other surplus land.” 4. Learned counsel for the respondents fairly conceded that the controversy in hand is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by the coordinate bench of this Court in M/s Kesar Sugar Works Limited (supra). 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the documents on record, this Court is of the opinion that the present writ petition should meet the same fate, as was met by Writ Petition (M/S) No.1888 of 2013, titled as M/s Kesar Sugar Works Limited vs. State of Uttarakhand & others. 6. As a consequence thereof, present writ petition is disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment. The impugned order dated 02.09.2015 is set aside and the application moved by the petitioner under Section 12-A of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holding Act, 1960 is allowed. The land be given to the petitioner in village Khurpia (plot no.89) as far as possible in a compact area and the possession be taken from the petitioner of the other surplus land. 7. Interim order dated 02.11.2015 stands vacated. All the pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly. 8. Let a certified copy of this order be supplied to the petitioner within 24 hours, on payment of usual charges.