Back
2022 Supreme(UK) 41
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.
Ram Sukh - Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others -Respondents
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 160 & 951 of 2022
Decided On : 06-05-2022
For the Petitioner:Mr. I.D. Paliwal and Ms. Shaifali Singh, Advocates
For the Respondent: Mr. T.S. Phartiyal, Addl. C.S.C.
Grievances related to revenue land should be addressed through judicial proceedings initiated before the competent courts defined under the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, and executive orders in relation to revenue land cannot be scrutinized under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Headnote:
Tea Estates - Land Classification Dispute - U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act - Section 3(14), 132, 209, 229-B, 176 - The court discussed the classification of land under the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act and emphasized that grievances related to revenue land should be addressed through judicial proceedings initiated before the competent courts defined under the Act. The court held that executive orders in relation to revenue land cannot be scrutinized under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and dismissed the writ petitions, granting the petitioners the liberty to seek adjudication through appropriate judicial proceedings under the Act.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved two connected Writ Petitions concerning a dispute over the classification and ownership of land, with the petitioners raising grievances against administrative orders rejecting their complaints related to the sale of land classified as 'Tea Estates'.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the grievances related to revenue land should be addressed through judicial proceedings initiated before the competent courts defined under the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, and executive orders in relation to revenue land cannot be scrutinized under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Issues: The main issue was the classification and ownership of the land, and whether the grievances related to revenue land should be addressed through administrative or judicial proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that grievances related to revenue land should be addressed through judicial proceedings initiated before the competent courts defined under the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, and executive orders in relation to revenue land cannot be scrutinized under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petitions, granting the petitioners the liberty to seek adjudication through appropriate judicial proceedings under the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act.
JUDGEMENT :
Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.
These are two connected Writ Petitions.
2. Writ Petition (M/S) No. 160 of 2022, has been filed by the petitioner claiming himself to be the ex-Pradhan, wherein, he has raised his grievances, as against the impugned order dated 29th October, 2020, which was passed by the Pargana Magistrate (Sadar), Dehradun, as a consequence of which, the complaint, which was submitted by the petitioner, before him on an administrative side, has been rejected. Further a writ of mandamus has also been sought commanding the respondents not to change the nature of the land or to create a third party interest over it.
3. The facts, which were pleaded by the petitioner in the Writ Petition, which was instituted on 17th January, 2022, it was on the basis; that the petitioner has admitted, that he had earlier filed a complaint, on an administrative side on 5th August, 2016, and taking cognizance to it, the A.D.M. vide his letter of 5th November, 2016, had written to the S.D.M., to take a decision on the compliant, which was submitted by the petitioner on 5th August, 2016, even thereafter, on 20th June, 2016, the Commissioner, Garhwal Mandal, considering the controversy, in relation to the complaint submitted, pertaining to the sale deed, which was proposed to be executed in relation to the land, which was classified as to be a “Tea Estates”, it was an act complained of by the petitioner, that the aforesaid land, since vests with the State, and it was being proceeded with to be sold, without there being a permission granted by the Committee, the petitioner prayed for, that an inquiry may be conducted, and accordingly, a report may be submitted with regard to the alleged transactions.
4. The A.D.M. is said to have submitted a report in compliance of the Commissioner’s order, by conducting an inquiry, but what is surprising is, that ever since submission of the report by the A.D.M. on 5th November, 2016, which was alleged to be in compliance of the Commissioner’s order on the earlier complaint of 5th August, 2016 of the petitioner, to what logical end, the complaint was brought to, has not been placed on record.
5. Rather the petitioner had filed yet a second complaint, which was yet again submitted on an administrative side before the A.D.M. on 8th July, 2019, contending thereof, that the land in dispute, lying in khasra Nos. 365-Ka and 367-Gha, as per the khatuni of 1416 to 1421, had been recorded as Shreni 6(2) land, lying in Village Niranjanpur, which could not have been sold after 10.10.1975, because any transaction of the land recorded as “Tea Estates”, if it is made after 10.10.1975, it would be violative of Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgment, as rendered in Civil Appeal No. (S) 2697 of 1984, as decided on 24th October, 1996.
6. The petitioner further contended, that apart from the khatuni entries of 1416 to 1421, the aforesaid two khasra numbers, as per the basic year entry of 1359 fasli, was recorded as an abadi land, lying in Shreni-2 and there existed a temple of a deity called as “Maa Bhadra Kali” at Nagar Khera Temple, situated in an Abadi area.
7. The petitioner in a second complaint of 18th July, 2019, had submitted that the sale made after 10.10.1975, violates the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 24th October, 1996, because the land which stands recorded in Shreni 6(2), would be a land, which shall stand vested with the State Government.
8. The petitioner in its complaint tried to co-relate, that the aforesaid land recorded in khasra No. 365-Ka and 367-Ga, which he contended to be the “Tea Estates”, which could not be sold, in fact, he had submitted that as per the notification issued by the State Government, i.e. the then State of U.P. on 30th December, 1939, the sale of a land by the respondents would be illegal and in violation of the Government Order dated 30th December, 1939 also, which principally intended to record the said land, as “Tea Estates”, which at the relevant point of time of issuance o
