IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
SHARAD KUMAR SHARMA, J.
Heera Singh Pangtey and others – Appellants
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others - Respondents
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2364 of 2015
Decided on : 04-03-2022
JUDGMENT :
Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.
Floreat Alma Mater, our Great Nation India.
2. The aforesaid reference has a relevance in the context of the issue involved, and the relevance of a Country for each and every citizen, who resides in it. The reference of the term “Alma Mater” in its literal and contextual meaning would mean a “generous Mother” and that is why our Country is the only country in the World, which is referred as to be the “Motherland”. If the two references of the word “Alma Mater” is preceded with the word used as “floreat”, that too has a reference denoting to the flourishment of the country and to its long life, which would be of a contextual perennial importance, while dealing with the issue raised by the petitioners.
3. The issue involved in the present Writ Petition is of a grave national concern, pertaining to regulating the frontier borders of the country, adjoining to the ‘Line of Actual Control’, which adjoins and shares the boundary lines of our neighbouring country, China, which is approximately about 20 to 25 Kms. only away from the land, in dispute, which is proposed to be acquired for the purposes of meeting out the defence need of the ITBPF, i.e. Indo Tibetan Border Police Force (hereinafter to be referred as I.T.B.P.).
4. The issue would be, as to whether despite of there being certain limited statutory protection; having being granted to a specified class of reserved community, i.e. the Scheduled Tribes, whether their personal rights, if it is, at all prevailing under law, would prevail over the right and interest of the nation, i.e. our Motherland, particularly, when it calls for defending the critical and strategic border of our Nation, in order to have preparedness, to meet any unprecedented insurgencies or army aggression, by the neighbouring county China.
5. The petitioners to the present Writ Petition, contend and claim themselves to be the resident of Village “Milam”, Tehsil Munsiyari, District Pithoragarh, which is located at a high altitude, in the higher laps of the Himalayas, approximately about 12,000 to 13,000 feets, in height above sea level. The said village “Milam”, where the land in dispute is situated and which is proposed to be acquired for defence purposes, is only approximately about 20 to 25 Kms. away from the bordering frontier, i.e. Line of Actual Control, between India and China, and strategically, it is of a grave military importance, for the defence of the country.
6. The petitioners have come up with the case, and they have raised a claim, that they are the residents of the said village, who yet again contend and claim to belong to a scheduled tribes, as it has been classified under Article 342 of the Constitution of India and are included as “Tribes”, as it has been specified under U.P. Scheduled Tribes U.P. Order of 1967. The petitioners contend, that the land, in question, which lies in the aforesaid Village is located in Khasra Nos. 1417, 1416, 1419, 1397, 1409, 1410 and 1411. The petitioner No.3, has contended, that as far as the aforesaid land described above is concerned, it is allegedly shown to have been recorded in the revenue records in the name of petitioner No.3.
7. On the other hand, the late petitioner No.1, who was later on; substituted by the petitioners Nos. 1/1 to 1/5, have similarly claimed their ownership over Khasra No. 1370 and 1371 of Village Milam and they have claimed and contended, that they too stood recorded in the revenue records, from the time of their predecessors. Late Mr. Mahiman Singh, father of petitioner No.2, and they have also claimed, that they have their rights over part of the unidentified land lying in khasra No. 1421 and 1417 of the same village.
8. Similarly, petitioner No. 4, had also claimed and contended, that he is the owner in possession of the land recorded in khasra Nos. 1470 and 1408, which has been placed on record by petitioner No.4, in order to substantiate his claim over the land, in question. The petitioners contended, t
Beg Raj Singh v. State of U.P.
Mohar Singh v. President Notified Area Committee
State of Bihar v. Project Uchcha Vidya
Vashisth Kumar Jaiswal Vs. State of U.P. and others
Gaya Din v. Hanuman Prasad AIR 2001 SC 386
State of U.P. and another Vs. Keshav Prasad Singh
Chameli Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. and others
State of Bihar and others Vs. Project Uchcha Vidya, Sikshak Sangh and others
Daulat Singh Surana and Ors. v. First Land Acquisition Collector and Ors. (2007) 1 SCC 641
Daulat Singh Surana and others Vs. First Land Acquisition Collector and others
State of Kerala and another Vs. Peoples Union for Civil Liberties, Kerala State Unit and others
Amarjit Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and other
Rajiv Sarin and another Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others
K.T. Plantation Private Limited and another Vs. State of Karnataka
Laxman Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Hari Krishna Mandir Trust Vs. State of Maharashtra and others
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.