Uttarakhand High Court
Petitioners vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 11 July, 2025
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition No. 2941 of 2024 (M/S)
Sujeet Ray and others
........Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others
.....Respondents
Present:-
Mr. S.K. Mandal, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. C.S. Rawat, Chief Standing Counsel for the State.
Judgment
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioners
with the following reliefs:-
“I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus,
directing and commanding the respondents not to evict the
petitioners forcefully and without adopting any legal
proceeding from the Khata No. 3, Khasra No. 50 and Khata
No. 2, Khasra No. 49/2 (min) area 8.855 hect. situated in
Village Majra Prahalad Palasiya Gram Sabha Kalyanpur,
Tehsil Sitarganj, District Udham Singh Nagar.
II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus
directing and commanding the respondents to
regularize/grant lease in the name of the petitioners in Khata
No. 2, Khasra No. 49/2 (min) area 8.855 hect. situated in
Village Majra Prahalad Palasiya Gram Sabha Kalyanpur,
Tehsil Sitarganj, District Udham Singh Nagar ont he basis of
the recommendation made by the Sub Divisional Magistrate
on 29.08.2016 and 23.07.2021 (contained in Annexure No. 7
& 8 to the writ petition).
III. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus
directing and commanding the respondents to exclude the
area 8.855 hect. of Khata No. 3, Khasra No. 50 and Khata No.
2, Khasra No. 49/2 of order dated 13.04.2023 passed by
respondent no. 1 and shall not use the agricultural land for
non-agricultural purpose i.e. the construction of Integrated
Aqua Park (Fish Processing Unit, Wholesale Fish Market, Fish
2Landing Centre) situated in Village Majra Prahalad Palasiya,
Gram Sabha Kalyanpur, Tehsil Sitarganj, District Udham
Singh Nagar.
IV. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari
calling the record, quashing and set-aside the order dated
13.04.2023 passed by the respondent no. 1 (only to the
extent of plot khasra no. 49/2 may be excluded up to (min)
area 8.855 hect.) and order dated 18.10.2024 passed by
Tehsildar Sitarganj, District Udham Singh Nagar (contained
in Annexure No. 11 & 16 to the writ petition).
V. Issue a suitable writ order or direction which this Hon’ble
Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the
case.
V. Award the cost of the petition in favour of the petitioners.”
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the record.
3. It is the case of the petitioners that they are in physical
and cultivatory possession of the land over Khasra No. 50, Khata No. 3
total area 1.983 hect. and Khasra No. 49/2 (min) area 8.855 hect.
situated at Majra Village Prahaladh Palasiya, Gram Sabha Kalyanpur,
Pargana Kilpuri, Tehsil Sitarganj, District Nainital (now District
Udham Singh Nagar) (“the land in question”); they have been in
possession of the land in question since 1980; they have been provided
with water connection; electricity connection; they have also obtained
other identity documents on that address; they have also grown crops,
raised their houses and trees on their property.
4. It is the case of the petitioners that on 13.04.2023, the
respondent no. 1 State of Uttarakhand, through its Secretary, Revenue
issued Government Order, by which land in Khata No. 2, Khasra No.
49/2 area 13.500 hect., Khasra no. 48/2 area 0.398 hect., Khasra No.
50/1 area 2.799 hect., total area 16.598 hect. has been transferred to
3
the Fisheries Department so as to develop a State level Integrated
Aqua Park and pursuant to it, the respondent no. 6/Tehsildar,
Sitarganj, District Udham Singh Nagar has made a communication to
all the concerned officers on 18.10.2024 that the land that has been
allotted to be Fisheries Department has to be vacated, so that
necessary action may be taken for taking possession. These both
communications have been challenged in the instant petition. In
addition to it, the petitioners also seek direction that the land in
question be regularized in their favour.
5. The Respondent no. 7 as well as the respondent nos. 3,
4, 5 & 6 has filed their separate counter affidavit. The Respondent no.
7 has nothing to say in the matter. The respondent nos. 3, 4, 5 & 6 in
their counter affidavit have averred that the land in question is a
Government land and land Khasra No. 48/2, 49/2 and 50/1
measuring 16.598 hect. has already been recorded in the name of
Fisheries Department, out of which possession of 14.500 hect. land
has already been given and the rest 2.098 hect. of land has not been
handed over to the Fisheries Department because of the standing crop
of paddy and pulses. According to the respondent nos. 3, 4, 5 & 6, as
soon as the crop is harvested, the possession of the rest of the land
will also be handed over to the Fisheries Department.
6. In fact, it has been the apprehension of the petitioners
that they are in possession of the land in question for more than four
decades now, but without recourse to the law, the respondents are
proposing to evict them; no proceedings under the provisions of the UP
Zamindari Abolition of Land Reforms Act, 1950 and the UP Tenancy
Act, 1939 have been initiated by the respondents for eviction of the
petitioners. Reference has been made to the averments made in para
4
28 of the writ petition, which has been replied in para 28 of the
counter affidavit filed by the respondent nos. 3, 4, 5 & 6, wherein it
has been stated that these averments are not admitted. According to
the respondent nos. 3, 4, 5 & 6, the writ petition is devoid of merit and
is liable to be dismissed.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
petitioners have already applied for regularization of land in their
favour, as they are landless labourers belonging to weaker sections;
recommendation has also been made in their favour, but the lease has
not been executed in favour of the petitioners on the land in question.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
petitioners have been in possession of the land in dispute for more
than four decades now, since the time of their ancestors; they have
their houses, they have their electricity connection, they have their
water connection, over the land in question; the petitioners have
cultivated the land on which they are growing crops; but, the
respondent authorities without due process of law, wants to evict
them. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that, in fact, the
petitioners have already given their application for regularization of the
land in their favour, on which the respondent no. 5/Sub Divisional
Magistrate, Sitarganj has made a recommendation on 29.08.2016 as
well as on 23.07.2021 to the respondent no.4/District Magistrate,
Udham Singh Nagar, but it has not yet been acted upon. Reference
has been made to Annexure Nos. 7 and 8 to the writ petition, which
are recommendation dated 29.08.2016 and 23.07.2021 of the
respondent no. 5/Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sitarganj with regard to
lease of the land in question in favour of the petitioners.
5
9. It is argued on behalf of the petitioners that the
respondent authorities may be directed to take a decision on the
application for regularization of the land in question in their favour
and the respondent authorities may be directed not to evict the
petitioners from their possession over the land in question, without
having recourse to law.
10. Learned Chief Standing Counsel submits that the land in
question has already been transferred in the name of the Fisheries
Department for a purpose, for which funds have also been received
from the Central Government. He submits that the petitioners shall be
evicted only in accordance with law.
11. When the Court posed a question to the learned Chief
Standing Counsel as to whether the application submitted by the
petitioner seeking regularization/grant of patta of the land in question
in their favour, on which recommendation was made by the
respondent no. 5/Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sitarganj, has been
decided by the respondent no. 4/District Magistrate, Udham Singh
Nagar prior to any proceeding for evicting the petitioners, learned
Chief Standing Counsel submits that proceeding for eviction of the
petitioner shall only be taken after a decision is taken on the
application of the petitioners for regularization/grant of patta, if not
already decided.
12. The Court takes on record the statement made by the
learned Chief Standing Counsel.
13. In view thereof, the writ petition is disposed of with the
following directions:-
6
(a) The respondent authorities shall not proceed to evict the
petitioners without due process of law.
(b) The respondent no. 4/District Magistrate, Udham Singh
Nagar shall take a decision on the application of the
petitioners for regularization/grant of patta of the land in
question, in favour of the petitioners, before proceeding to
evict the petitioners, if decision on it has not already been
taken.
(Ravindra Maithani, J)
11.07.2025
Avneet/