HI GH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAI NI TAL

Writ Petition Misc. Single No. 2886 of 2022

06 August, 2025

Shashi Agarwal & others --Petitioners

Versus

State of Uttarakhand & others --Respondents

with

Writ Petition Misc. Single No. 2958 of 2022

06 August, 2025

Manoj Narain Agarwal --Petitioner

Versus

State of Uttarakhand & others --Respondents -------------------------------------------------------------------

Presence:-

Mr. A.S. Rawat, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mohd. Shafy, Advocate

for the petitioners in WPMS No. 2886 of 2022.

Mr. Arvind Vashistha, Senior Advocate, assisted by Ms. Devanshi Joshi, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Vivek Pathak, Advocate for the petitioner in WPMS No. 2958 of 2022 & respondent no. 3 in WPMS No. 2886 of

2022.

Mr. Yogesh Chandra Tiwari and Mr. I.P. Kohli, Standing Counsel for the

State of Uttarakhand.

Mr. Anurag Bisaria, Advocate for respondent no. 9 in WPMS No. 2958

of 2022.

Mr. Pragya Prakash Upadhyay and Ms. Aditi Singh, Advocates for

respondent no. 12.

Mr. M.C. Kandpal, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Devesh Kandpal,

Advocate for respondent no. 15.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.

Hon’ble Subhash Upadhyay, J.

(Per: Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)

JUDGMENT

Since common questions of law and fact are

involved in these writ petitions, therefore they are heard together and are being decided by a common judgment. However, for the sake of brevity, facts of Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2886 of 2022 alone are being

considered and discussed.

2. Petitioners have challenged the order dated 03.11.2022, passed by Collector, Udhamsingh Nagar, in proceedings under Section 6-A of U.P. Government Estates Thekedari Abolition Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as ‘GETA Act’), as amended from time to time. Petitioners allege that the order passed by Collector is not in accordance with paragraph no. 29 of the judgment, rendered by learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 963 of 2005 and other connected petitions. Paragraph No. 29 of the said judgment is extracted below:-

“29. The only argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners, which can be said to be acceptable, is that 30 acres area has been wrongly mentioned in the notice and, therefore, on this count, the notice is not valid. The impugned notice issued by the Collector, on this count only, is set aside. Writ Petition No. 962 of 2005 (MS) and Writ Petition No. 963 of 2005 (MS) are partly allowed and the Collector, Udham Singh Nagar, is directed to initiate appropriate proceedings in accordance with law and in view of Section 6-A, quoted above, for determination of the ceiling area and separation of surplus area and to take steps accordingly against those tenure holders, who were recorded at the time of determination of lease or their successors in interest.”

3. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners relies upon order dated 02.04.2014, passed by coordinate Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No. 62 of 2014. Paragraph no. 1 of the said order is extracted below:-

“The learned Advocate General submits that in compliance of the order under appeal, possession of the land has been taken by the State, which was in possession of the sub-lessees. The learned counsel for the appellants contends that the appellants are not concerned with the land, which was with the sub-lessees. A request is being made for maintenance of status quo. We direct that without due process of law, no part of the land in possession of the appellants shall be taken by the State and, at the same time, we make it clear that without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the respective parties in the appeal, steps, as have been directed to be taken in paragraph 29 of the judgment under appeal, shall be taken by the State. However, in the event, the appeal is not heard and decided before final publication in accordance with the mandate contained in the ceiling law, the State will seek permission of this Court to publish