Back
2017 Supreme(UK) 141
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
K.M. Joseph and V.K. Bist, JJ.
Rajesh Goyal and others - Appellants
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others - Respondents
Special Appeal No. 14 of 2015
Decided On : 12-05-2017
For the Appellants :Mr. Vishal Gupta, Advocate along with Mr. H.M. Bhatia, Advocate.
For the MDDA :Mr. Vinay Garg, Advocate with Mr. Rahul Consul, Advocate.
For the State of Uttarakhand : Mr. Pradeep Joshi, Standing Counsel.
Headnote:(A) Statutes - Context of - Giving right to appeal or revision against orders, which are impugned and they contemplated communication of the order - An order would not be effective, if it is merely signed and kept with the officer as mentioned and kept in the file as it would not be an order in the eyes of law - In some statutes, the appellate proceedings are validly commenced only with the certified copy. (Paras 20 to 30)
(B) Nazul Policy, Clause 7(10) - Powers of - Magistrate under - Held that the power was exercised by the District Magistrate in respect of lands, which were covered by Clause 3(7) - Order dated 02.12.2011 do not contain a settlement that the entire lands are to be made freehold - Cannot be held that the decision of the District Magistrate is contrary to order dated 02.12.2011. (Paras 70 to 76, 90 to 105)
(C) Nazul Policy - Public Interest - In the circumstances of the case, with regard to the public interest - No interference with the judgment of the learned Single Judge - Held that the appellants, who were allotted new places in the building of the Authority, will not be evicted from their places provided the amount due for the equivalent area was paid. (Paras 95 to 106)
¼v½ lafof/k & izlax & vihy ;k iqujh{k.k dk mu vkns'kksa ds fo#) vf/kdkj] tks fd baeidaM Fks o vkns'k ds lapkj ij fopkj djrs Fks & dksbZ Hkh vkns'k izHkkoh ugha gksrk] vxj ek= gLrk{kfjr gks o vf/kdkjh ds ikl QkbZy esa j[kk x;k Fkk] tSlk fd of.kZr] dfFkr vkns'k fof/ke; ugha & dqN lafof/k;ksa esa] vihyh; dk;Zokfg;k¡ flQZ izekf.kr izfr;ksa }kjk vkjEHk gksrh gSaA ¼izLrj 20 ls 30½
¼c½ utwy ikWfylh DykWt 7¼10½ & eftLVªsV ds vf/kdkj & /kkfjr fd eftLVªsV }kjk Hkwfe ds laca/k esa vf/kdkjksa dk iz;ksx fd;k x;k Fkk tks fd DykWt 3¼7½ esa vkPNkfnr ugha & vkSj fnukad 2-12-2011 ds vkns'k esa O;oLFkkiu ugha Fkk fd lEiw.kZ Hkwfe dks eqDr ntkZ fn;k tk, & ;g vo/kkfjr ugha fd;k tk ldrk fd ftyk eftLVªsV dk fu.kZ;] fnukad 2-12-2011 ds vkns'k ds foijhr FkkA ¼izLrj 70 ls 76] 90 ls 105½
¼l½ utwy ikWfylh & yksd fgr ds laca/k esa o okn dh ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa & ekuuh; ,dy U;k;k/kh'k ds fu.kZ; esa] gLr{ksi ugha & /kkfjr fd vihykFkhZ ftudks izkf/kÑr Hkou esa uohu LFkku dk vkoaVu fd;k x;k Fkk] dks muds LFkku ls fu"dkflr ugha fd;k tk,xk c'krs± fd led{k {ks= dh cdk;k jkf'k tek djh x;h gksA ¼izLrj 95 ls 106½
K.M. Joseph, J.
Appellants are the writ petitioners. They filed the writ petition seeking the following reliefs:
"i) Issue a writ, in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 07.08.2013 passed by the Respondent No. 3 (contained as Annexure no. 12 to this writ petition).
(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 2 to freehold the entire Nazul Land of the petitioners (as mentioned in Para no. 16 of this writ petition) in accordance with the directions contained in Government Order dated 02.12.2011 issued by respondent no. 1 (contained as Annexure no. 6 to this writ petition)."
2. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. Hence, the appeal.
3. We have heard Mr. Vishal Gupta, Advocate, along with Mr. H.M. Bhatia, Advocate for the appellants; Mr. Vinay Garg, Advocate appearing on behalf of the MDDA; and Mr. Pradeep Joshi, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State.
4. Briefly put, the case of the appellants is as follows:
(i) Appellant Nos. 1 to 4 are the successors in interest of one Sri Sagar Mal Goyal and the other appellants, four in number, claim that they are nazul lease holders. Applications for making their nazul lands freehold had been made by them along with deposit of 25 per cent of the charges. Nazul Policy was declared by the State of Uttarakhand, which also provided for honouring freehold conversion applications filed earlier as per the Nazul Policy of the State of Uttar Pradesh. The Government was considering the issue of widening the Chakrata Road and the applications of the appellants were kept pending. It is averred that, from the date of the applications till November, 2011, all the appellants were in contact with the authorities and requested them verbally for conversion. Thereafter, it is alleged that a consensus was arrived at between the shopkeepers/residents of Chakrata Road, including the appellants, and the Government and order dated 02.12.2011 was issued for widening of Chakrata Road and for rehabilitation. Reference is made, in particular, to Paragraphs 3(7) & 3(9) of the said order, which read as follows:
"3(7) In case of Nazul holders who have deposited 25% amount on self-evaluation basis for conversion of their Nazul Leased land into free-hold, allotment of shop/house to them at the new place be made after getting the balance amount deposited from them on the basis of previous circle rate or the circle rate prevalent in the year 2000 and after conversion into free-hold.
3(9) In case of Nazul Lease Holders whose term has expired, facility of Freehold conversion be provided as per the provisions contained in Government Order No. 761/V/H- 20121-01(N.L.)/2008-T.C., dated 29th November, 2011."
(ii) A part of the property of the appellants came to be demolished by the second respondent. It is alleged that it is done without complying with the conditions mentioned in paragraphs 3(7) & 3(9), which we have adverted to, and provisional allotment letters of shops / houses were handed over to the appellants just 24 hours prior to undertaking the demolition. Appellants have some property left after the said demolition. Notices were issued demanding freehold conversion charges at the rate of Rs. 6,000/- per square meter for only part of the land of the appellants taken during the widening, in lieu of which appellants were allotted shops / houses in the new complex. Appellants gave representations (Annexure No. 9). It is their case that respondent No. 2 is bound to freehold the entire nazul land of the appellants.
(iii) One writ petition being Writ Petition (PIL) No. 87 of 2012 was filed before this Court. The petitioners therein sought a direction to provide adequate parking facility and pathways in and around the area demolished for widening the Chakrata Road on the ground that it would ensure that parking is not done on the side of the widened Chakrata Road and to ensure reconstruction.
(iv) Reference is made to a letter dated 0
