IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
P.C. Verma, J.
M/s Ski & Snow Resorts Pvt. Ltd., Ram Nagar, Nainital. ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & Others ...Respondents
Writ Petition (M/S) 180/2008
Decided on : 30th September, 2008
Zamindari Abolition - Land Reforms - U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950, Kumaon & Uttarakhand Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act - Section 166, 167, 157-B - The court discussed the applicability of Section 157-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act to the area governed by the Kumaon & Uttarakhand Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. It concluded that the provisions of Section 157-B are not applicable to the areas governed by the Kumaon & Uttarakhand Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, and therefore, the transfer of land in dispute by sale deed or lease deed in favor of the petitioner is valid and legal.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner purchased land and constructed a resort, which was later included in an acquisition scheme. The Tourism Department applied for demarcation of its land and alleged encroachment by the petitioner. Proceedings were initiated under Section 166 and 167 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act based on reports submitted by revenue authorities.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the provisions of Section 157-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act are not applicable to the areas governed by the Kumaon & Uttarakhand Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, and therefore, the transfer of land in dispute by sale deed or lease deed in favor of the petitioner is valid and legal. The impugned proceedings under Section 166 & 167 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act were an abuse of process of law and were quashed.
Issues: The main issue was whether the provisions of Section 157-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act applied to the area governed by the Kumaon & Uttarakhand Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court analyzed the legal effect of Section 47 and 52 of the Kumaon & Uttarakhand Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, and discussed the principles of incorporation by reference and legislative practice. It concluded that the provisions of Section 157-B are not applicable to the areas governed by the Kumaon & Uttarakhand Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act.
Final Decision: The writ petition succeeded, and the impugned proceedings under Section 166 & 167 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act were quashed.
By means of this writ petition, petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari for quashing the proceedings initiated under Section 166 & 167 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950 pending before the respondent no. 2/Assistant Collector, Ist Class, Joshimath, District Chamoli in case no. 6 of 2007-08, State v. Vijai Singh Pal & others.
2. Relevant and undisputed facts of the case are that the petitioner purchased land comprised in plots no. 15, 16 and 17 measuring 2 nali, 5 nali and 8 nali 12 muthi respectively in Village Auli Lagga Salul Dungra, Tehsil Joshimath, District Chamoli through the registered sale deed dated 24.4.1996 from Dr. Vijai Singh Pal and others, who belong to Scheduled Tribe. Another plot no. 18 measuring about 31 nali situated in aforesaid village belonging to those persons was also taken on lease by the petitioner. The land has been declared as non- agricultural land by the order of the then Assistant Collector, Ist Class, Joshimath. The petitioner has constructed a resort over the said land in the name of Cliff Top Club. During the construction of the resort, the area of Auli was brought under the provisions of U.P. (Regulations of Building Operations) Act. The notices were issued to the petitioner for raising alleged unauthorized constructions and an order for demolition was passed by the Prescribed Authority, against which the appeal of the petitioner was allowed by the Controlling Authority by the order dated 28.7.1999 and order of the Prescribed Authority was set aside. After the construction of the resort, the same was registered under the Sarai Act.
3. The land in Village Auli Lagga Salul Dungra was proposed to be acquired for promotion of winter games. The land of the petitioner was also included in the acquisition scheme. Petitioner preferred a writ petition before the State Government and after due consideration the land in dispute was excluded from acquisition due to construction of a resort over the aforesaid plots. In the meantime, petitioner has filed a writ petition before this Court, which was dismissed as infructuous vide order dated 23.8.2005 passed by Division Bench of this Court.
4. Thereafter Tourism Department applied for demarcation of its land to the respondent no. 2 upon which a notice was issued to the petitioner. While the demarcation case was pending, the Tourism Department applied to the respondent no. 2 to remove the alleged encroachment by the letter dated 1.12.2007. Thereafter on 2.12.2007 a part of the resort was demolished with police aid alleging it to be an encroachment on the land of Tourism Department. Being aggrieved, petitioner filed a civil suit before the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Gopeshwar, Chamoli seeking permanent injunction.
5. On 2.12.2007 itself, an F.I.R. was lodged by the respondent no. 2 against Mr. Atul Sharma, Managing Director of petitioner-company and some other persons under Sections 166, 167, 218 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Joshimath, Chamoli. Thereafter Managing Director of the petitioner-company filed a Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 12 of 2008 before this Court, wherein an interim order dated 8.1.2008 has been passed by Division Bench of this Court preventing arrest of Mr. Atul Sharma, Managing Director of the petitioner- company.
6. Respondent no. 2 also initiated proceedings under Section 166 and 167 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950 on the basis of the reports dated 28.11.2007 & 30.11.2007 submitted by Revenue Inspector, Joshimath and Tehsildar, Joshimath respectably. On the basis of these reports, a case no. 6 of 2007-08 has been registered and show cause notice was issued to the petitioner. Hence, this writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner to quash the proceedings of the aforesaid case no. 6 of 2007-08.
7. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have carefully perused the materials available on record.
8. The respondent no. 2 after calling reports from re
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.