Reserved on :23.09.2025 Delivered on: 08.10.2025

HI GH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAI NI TAL

HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE MANOJ KUMAR TI WARI

Writ Petition Misc. Single No. 2056 of 2023

Karnail Singh & others --Petitioners

Versus

State of Uttarakhand and others --Respondents -------------------------------------------------------------------

Presence:-

Mr. Siddhartha Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners.

Mr. Ganesh Dutt Kandpal, learned Deputy Advocate General for the

State of Uttarakhand.

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

JUDGMENT

A Government Order was issued by the State

Government on 18.07.2016, declaring its policy for regularization of certain category of unauthorized occupation over public land, recorded in revenue records as Class-IV. It also provided for grant of

bhumidhari rights to eligible persons over such land.

2. Petitioners applied in terms of the Government Order for regularization of their unauthorized occupation over land comprised in Khasra No. 448/1/1 and Khasra No. 448/3, admeasuring 4.018 hectare, situate in Village Khairna, Tehsil Sitarganj, Nanakmatta, Udham Singh Nagar. The District Magistrate called a report from concerned Sub

Divisional Magistrate. In his report, the Sub Divisional Magistrate stated that the land in question, sought to be regularized by petitioners, is a water body, therefore, benefit of the policy decision contained in Government Order dated 18.07.2016 cannot be given to them in view of Section 132 of Zamindari Abolition &

Land Reforms Act, 1950.

3. Section 132 of Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 is reproduced below:- “132. Land in which bhumidhari rights shall not accrue.- Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 131, but without prejudice to the provisions of Section 19, bhumidhari rights shall not accrue in-

(a) pasture lands or lands covered by water and used for the purpose of growing singkara or other produce or land in the bed of a river and used for casual or occasional cultivation;

(b) such tracts of shifting or unstable cultivation as the State Government may specify by notification in the Gazette; and (c) lands declared by the Slate Government by notification in the Official Gazette, to be intended or set apart for taunghya plantation or grove lands of a Gaon Sabha or a Local Authority or land acquired or held for a public purpose and in particular and without prejudice to the generality of this clause-

(i) lands set apart for military encamping grounds;

(ii) lands included within railway or canal boundaries;

(iii) lands situate within the limits of any cantonment;

(iv) lands included in suliage farms or trenching grounds belonging as such to a local authority; (v) lands acquired by a town improvement trust in accordance with a scheme sanctioned under Section 42 of the U.P. Town Improvement Act, 1919 (U.P. Act V11 of 1919), or by a municipality for a purpose mentioned in Clause (a) or Clause (c) of Section 8 of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 (U.P.

Act VII of 1916); and (vi) lands set apart for public purposes under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (U.P.

Act V of 1954).”

4. Petitioners are aggrieved by acceptance of the aforesaid report by District Magistrate by an endorsement made on the report, and consequent rejection of petitioners application.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since petitioners meet all conditions of eligibility as per Government Order dated 18.07.2016 and they also `

deposited 3,23,500/- in the office of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sitarganj well within time, therefore, petitioners are entitled for regularization of their possession as per the Government Policy and the reason assigned for rejecting their request for regularization is unjust and legally unsustainable.

6. Per contra, learned State Counsel submits that there is no statutory or legal right vested in the petitioners to get their unauthorized occupation over public land regularized; policy to regularize unauthorized occupation over Class-