IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.
Sundar Singh and Others – Appellants
Versus
State of Uttarakhand And Others - Respondents
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 3061 of 2016
Decided On : 22-10-2019
Land Allotment - Violation of Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 - Section 9(3)(E) - Section 198 - Government Orders dated 09.05.1984 and 12.09.1997
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenge the allotment of land for constructing a parking area near a tourist point. They allege improper allotment for commercial purposes, violation of government orders, and lack of transparency.
Finding of the Court:
The court finds that the allotment violates the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 and the Government Orders. It also highlights the failure to follow principles of equality and larger public good.
Issues: Improper land allotment, violation of legal provisions, lack of transparency, and public interest
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision is based on the violation of legal provisions and the failure to consider public interest and principles of equality in the land allotment process.
Final Decision: The writ petition succeeds, and the orders for land allotment are quashed and set aside.
JUDGMENT :
Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.
The petitioners before this Court, who are five in numbers, are all residents of Village "Banglow Ki Kandi", which has its "Gram Sabha" and its "Panchayat." This village is admittedly situated in close proximity to the hill station "Mussoorie", in Uttarakhand. It is also adjacent to a favourite tourist point which is a water fall, called "Kempti Fall".
2. The petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the two orders i.e. order dated 27.05.2016 passed by the Additional Secretary, Government of Uttarakhand and the subsequent order dated 15.07.2016 by which the District Magistrate/Collector of District Tehri Garhwal has executed a lease deed in favour of private respondent no. 3, for constructing and running a parking area, in the land of Gram Sabha "Banglow Ki Kandi". The land is admittedly a part of the village and is classified under Section 9(3)(E) of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (from hereinafter referred to as the Act), which is a "banjar". It is the nature of allotment which is in question as it is purely for commercial purposes and allegedly in violation of the Government Orders dated 09.05.1984 and 12.09.1997, apart from the violation of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. The petitioners allege that all principles of equity, fair play and transparency have been set aside while giving this allotment in favour of private respondent no. 3. The allotment has been made in favour of respondent no. 3 simply on his moving an application for allotment of the land for a period of ninety years on lease, for establishing and running a parking area near "Kempty Fall", On this application, the Additional Secretary, Government of Uttarakhand has passed an order dated 27.05.2016, granting such allotment, and in consequence of this order the District Magistrate/Collector of District Tehri Gahrwal by order dated 15.07.2016 has executed a lease deed in favour of private respondent no. 3, on certain conditions. These are the two orders under challenge.
3. The petitioners allege that this has all been done as respondent no. 3 is a former "Pradhan" of Gram Sabha "Banglow Ki Kandi" and has close links with the powers that be, and it is because of his close proximity with the authorities and politicians that he has procured a lease in his favour for a period of ninety years. The land has been given to him not for agricultural purposes but purely for commercial purposes. It is not the case of respondent no. 3 that he is landless and needs land for agriculture and for his sustenance and livelihood. The land which is covered under the lease deed is in khasra no. 450 within the limits of Gram Sabha "Banglo Ki Kandi" and measures 0.200 hectare. It is also alleged that there are more than 1000 trees standing on the property which are liable to be felled for construction of a parking lot, and that a part of the area is also forest area.
4. The further case of the petitioners is that before allotting in form of a lease deed, no general notice was given to the villagers or in the Gram Sabha. Initially, there was an application moved by an "Educated Unemployed Association", of which one of the members was the son of respondent no. 3 and initially proceedings were initiated on the application of this Association, but ultimately the land was allotted in favour of respondent no. 3 on his subsequent application. It is also alleged that the land is prone to land slide and a concrete parking structure is not practical and in fact it is against the environmental laws.
5. Although the State has been made a party through Additional Secretary, Revenue, which has passed the order dated 27.05.2016, the State Government has not even bothered to file a counter affidavit, inspite of opportunities. Counter affidavit has come on behalf of respondent no. 2 i.e. the District Magistrate, Tehri Garhwal, which has been sworn by the Tehsildar, Dhanolti, District Tehri Garhw
AI
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.