The main legal point established in the judgment is that the provisions of UPZA & LR Act were adapted by reference to the KUZA Act, and any subsequent amendments made in the UPZA & LR Act automatically applied to the KUZA Act, including the applicability of Section 157-B inserted by U.P. Act No.21 of 1982.

The present special appeal has been filed by the State of Uttarakhand against the judgment dated 30th September, 2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.180 of 2008 (M/S) by which the learned Single Judge has quashed the proceedings initiated by the Assistant Collector under Section 166 & 167 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the UPZA & LR Act).

2. The facts leading to the filing of the Special Appeal is that Dr. Vijay Singh Pal and Arun Singh, belonging to the Scheduled Tribes community, sold plot nos.15, 16 and 17 measuring 15 naali and 12 muthi (0.315 hectares) by means of a sale deed dated 24.04.1996 to the writ petitioner M/s Ski & Snow Resorts Pvt. Ltd., which is a company duly incorporated under the Companies Act and which is engaged in tourism and hospitality business. Subsequent to the sale deed, the land was declared non-agriculture under Section 143 of the UPZA & LR Act, upon which the writ petitioner (now ‘opposite party’ in this Special Appeal) constructed a resort at Auli in District Chamoli under the name and style of M/s Ski & Snow Resort, which is alleged to be registered under the Sarai Act. It is alleged that the tourism department of the State Government proposed acquisition of the land at Auli for promoting winter games, but, subsequent upon the representation of the writ petitioner, the State Government excluded the land of the petitioner from acquisition. The State Government also constructed a winter resort at the same place, namely at Auli and, it is alleged that there was some dispute with regard to the demarcation of the land in which proceedings have been initiated and certain portion constructed by the petitioner was demolished. In this regard, the writ petitioner has filed a suit, which is pending consideration before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gopeshwar in District Chamoli.

3. In the meanwhile, the Revenue Inspector, Joshimath submitted a report dated 28.11.2007 and the Tehsildar also submitted a report dated 30th November, 2007 indicating therein that Dr. Vijay Singh Pal, being a member of the Scheduled Tribes community, was debarred from selling the land to a person outside his community under Section 157-B of the UPZA & LR Act. The report submitted by the Revenue Inspector and the Tehsildar indicated that Dr. Vijay Singh Pal had illegally transferred the land to the petitioner, who did not belong to the Scheduled Tribes community and that the sale deed executed was in violation of the provision of Section 157-B of the UPZA & LR Act. On the basis of the said reports, the Assistant Collector, Joshimath, District Chamoli registered a case under Section 166 and 167 of the UPZA & LR Act, being case No.6 of 2007-2008, and issued notices to Dr. Vijay Singh Pal and his nephew as well as to the writ petitioner to show cause as to why the land should not vest in the State Government for the contravention of the provision of Section 157-B of the UPZA & LR Act. It transpires that Dr. Vijay Singh Pal filed his reply before the authority admitting that he was not aware of the provision of Section 157-B of the UPZA & LR Act and that he was not aware that previous permission was required to be obtained from the Collector before transferring the property to the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner, instead of filing a reply, preferred Writ Petition No.180 of 2008 (M/S) praying for the quashing of the proceedings initiated by the Assistant Collector under Section 166 & 167 of the UPZA & LR Act. The said writ petition was entertained and, eventually, the learned Single Judge, by the impugned judgment, quashed the proceedings.

4. The State Government, being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, preferred a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court of India and, upon an objection being raised by the writ petitioner with regard to the maintainability of the Special Leave Petition, withdrew the appeal seeking