The main legal point established in the judgment is that the grant of freehold rights must be based on factual correctness and adherence to the legal provisions, especially in the context of land disputes and government policies.

JUDGMENT

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) :

The challenge in this petition is made to an order dated 22.06.2018, passed by the respondent no.2 the District Magistrate, Tehri Garhwal, by which, freehold rights have been granted in favour of the respondent no. 3 over Khata No.3/7, Khasra No. 7 admeasuring 5 Nali, 7 Muthi i.e. 1090 Sq. Meters in Village Dhalwala, Rishikesh (“the disputed land”) as well as an order dated 29.01.2022, passed by the respondent no.2 the District Magistrate, Tehri Garhwal, by which an application for recalling order dated 22.06.2018 has been rejected.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. Facts necessary to appreciate the controversy, briefly stated, are as follows:-

The petitioner is one of the important tour operators for Char Dham Yatra, which also starts from Rishikesh. The petitioner in the year 1992-93 requested the respondent no.2 the District Magistrate, Tehri Garhwal that a piece of land admeasuring 18 Nali or 37400 Sq. Meters (“the land”) situated in Village Dhalwala, Rishikesh be transferred to it for workshop-cum-parking space. The petitioner’s further case is as follows:-

(i) The petitioner was given possession of the land. The petitioner also carried out the expenses of Rs.5 Lakhs in the construction of approach road etc.

(ii) The disputed land is a part of the land. Its lease was granted in favour of one Sunil Kumar on 25.06.1994 and immediately, it was transferred in favour of the respondent no.3 on 30.06.1994.

(iii) The petitioner objected to the lease in favour of the respondent no.3 and made a communication on 14.08.1997.

(iv) On 31.03.1998, the lease granted in favour of the respondent no.3 of the disputed land was cancelled by the respondent no.2.

(v) The petitioner requested the respondent no.2 for transfer of land in its favour.

(vi) The respondent no.3 challenged the order dated 31.03.1998 cancelling his lease, before the Commissioner, Garhwal Mandal (“the Commissioner”) by filing a Misc. Appeal No. 1 of 1997/98 (“the appeal”). The appeal was dismissed on 28.09.2002.

(vii) The Commissioner in its order recorded that the respondent no.2 could not have granted the lease of the disputed land to the respondent no.3.

(viii) The order dated 28.09.2002 passed in the appeal was further challenged by the respondent no.3 before the High Court. The matter was remanded. But again, on 03.11.2006, the appeal stood dismissed.

(ix) The Commissioner recorded a categorical finding that the petitioner was in possession of the disputed land.

(x) The order dated 03.11.2006 passed in the appeal by the Commissioner was further challenged in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1896 of 2006 (“the petition”), which was finally withdrawn on 15.06.2016 by the respondent no.3 with the direction to the respondent no.2 to decide the application of the petitioner for converting his land into freehold in accordance with law and in view of the New Nazul Policy, 2011, but without being influenced by the earlier impugned orders passed by some authority concerned.

(xi) After the order passed in the petition, the petitioner again approached the respondent no.2 raising his claim with regard to the disputed land.

(xii) In one of the communications made by the petitioner, the respondent no.2 had on 15.11.2018 informed the petitioner that the proceedings to grant freehold rights to the respondent no.3 are under consideration.

(xiii) Subsequently, it was revealed that on 22.06.2018, the respondent no.2 had ordered for grant of freehold rights in favour of the respondent no.3.

(xiv) In WPPIL No. 132 of 2013, In Reference Nazul Policy of the State for Disposing & Management of Nazul Land Vs. State and Others (“the PIL”) this Court on 19.06.2018 had struck down the Clauses 4 (f) (g) (h) of the Nazul Policy and the Government was directed to take over the possession of all such properties.

(xv) The order dated 19.06.2018, passed in the PIL by this Court was challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Special Lea