##PAGE1##

2025:UHC:11550

Office Notes,

reports, orders

or proceedings

SL.

Date or directions COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS

No.

and Registrar’s

order with

Signatures

WPMS/ 3455/ 2025

Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.

Mr. Vinod Fulara, Advocate for the

petitioner through V.C.

Mr. Suyash Pant, Standing Counsel for the

State.

2. A piece of nazul land was leased out in

favour of petitioner’s father-in-law, late Laxmi

Dutt Pande in the year 1959 for a period of 30

years. According to her, she applied for renewal

and also for transfer of the lease in her favour.

Her request was turned down by District

Magistrate, vide order dated 18.11.2025. Thus

feeling aggrieved, petitioner has approached this

Court.

3. Perusal of impugned order passed by

District Magistrate reveals that lease granted in

favour of petitioner’s father-in-law was never

renewed, and the lease earlier granted, expired

on 31.03.1989. It further reveals that the land in

question is needed for widening of Haldwani-

Ramnagar State highway.

4. The impugned order further reveals that

the land in question is recorded as category 6(2)

in revenue record which indicates that the land

is required for some public purpose.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner,

2025:UHC:11550

however, submits that lease of the land in

question was transferred in favour of

petitioner’s husband vide order dated

24.10.1989, passed by District Magistrate,

Nainital.

6. He further submits that petitioner is in

peaceful possession over the said land without

any let or hindrance and a shop constructed by

her husband is also standing thereupon, from

which petitioner is running her business. He

submits that petitioner is entitled to have the

lease renewed, as it was granted to her father-in-

law in 1959.

7. The reasons assigned in the impugned

order for not renewing the lease in favour of

petitioner, cannot be faulted.

8. State, as owner of the property, can decide

when to grant a lease and to whom. If a

particular piece of nuzul land is needed for any

public purposes, then State Government can

very well refuse to grant lease or to renew a

lease already granted.

9. State is custodian of public property and

nazul land is maintained by State for larger

public good. Therefore State should be very

wary and vigilant while granting lease of nazul

land to private individuals. While renewing

lease of nazul land in favour of individuals, it

has to bear in mind that such land may be

2025:UHC:11550

needed for some important public purpose

which may emerge in future.

10. However, having regard to the facts of the

case and also in view of the fact that there is a

free hold policy in place, the writ petition is

disposed of with liberty to petitioner to apply

for free hold, if the policy so permits.

11. If petitioner makes application for free

hold within fifteen days from today, decision

thereupon shall be taken by the competent

authority within four weeks thereafter.

12. For a period of six weeks, or till decision

is taken on the application, no coercive action

shall be taken against petitioner.

(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)

23.12.2025

Mahinder/