Disposed

State of Uttarakhand through District Magistrate,Haridwar. v. Abdul Razzaq

Uttarakhand HC13 Dec 2021WPMS/2431/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an urgency application for a writ petition challenging the Board of Revenue's order regarding land acquisition. While noting the respondent failed to regularize the land purchase within the given time, the court granted liberty to pay requisite amounts and make applications within 45 days for the authorities to pass orders on merit.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to the respondent to pay requisite amounts and make applications for regularization within 45 days.

State of Uttarakhand through District… — Land Acquisition | Uttarakhand HC (2021)

¶1

I N THE HI GH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAI NI TAL

¶2

Writ Petition (M/ S) No.2431 of 2015

¶3

State of Uttarakhand through District Magistrate, Haridwar

¶4

...............Petitioner

¶5

-versus-

¶6

Abdul Razzaq S/ o Shri Makhmool Ahmed R/ o Village

¶7

Bahadrabad, District Haridwar

¶8

.............Respondent

¶9

Advocates appeared in the case: -

¶10

For appellant : Mr. Suyash Pant, learned Standing Counsel for the State/ Petitioner.

¶11

For respondents : Mr. Mohd. Alauddin, learned counsel for the respondent.

¶12

Date of hearing and Judgement : 13.12.2021

¶13

Sri S.K.Mishra, J.

¶14

The matter is taken up under the caption ‘Orders on Application’ filed by the learned counsel for the respondent under the Urgency Application for earlier disposal of the Writ Application. The Urgency Application is allowed. The Matter is taken up for final hearing.

¶15

Heard Mr. Suyash Pant, learned counsel for the State/Writ Applicant and Mr. Mohd. Alauddin, learned counsel for the respondent.

¶16

¶17

In this writ application, the State of Uttarakhand through the District Magistrate, Haridwar has assailed the final order dated 12.08.2013 passed by the learned Board of Revenue, Uttarakhand in Revision No. 22/2011-12, allowing the application of the respondent and setting aside the order passed by the Additional Collector (Revenue and Finance), Haridwar in Dispute Case No. 97 of 2005-06, bearing dated 8^th November, 2011, and revised the order dated 13.03.2012. The petitioner has purchased a piece of land, which is allegedly in-violation of Section 168-A of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, and an application under the provision of Section 34 and 35 of the U.P. Z.A & L.R. Act, was filed before the Tehsildar bearing case no. 487 of 2006. During the said proceedings, the Tehsildar on 4^th July, 2006 submitted the report of the Collector that since the transfer of land have been extended in violation of the provision of Section 168-A of the U. P. Z. A. & L. R. Act, therefore, the property detailed in the said report be vested in favour of the State Government.

¶18

Taking cognizance of the aforesaid letter of the Collector, Haridwar under Sections 166 and 167 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, registered as Case No. 33/05-06 (State vs. Abdul Razzak), and the court of Collector, Haridwar, vide its order dated 5^th July, 2006, issued notices to the respondent. The final order was passed by the learned Additional Collector, Finance and Revenue, Haridwar vide order dated 08.11.2011 and held

¶19

¶20

that the land has vested upon the State Government, as there is a violation of Section 168-A of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. Aggrieved by the order, the petitioner preferred a restoration application on 07.12.2011, which was again dismissed on 30.05.2012. Against such order passed by the Additional Collector, the revision was preferred to the Board of Revenue, which passed the order impugned taking into consideration, the fact that by the time, the proceedings were initiated for violation of Section 168-A of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, the said provision was already deleted with a liberty to the affected to file an for person application regularisation of the land on payment of certain amount of Salami within six months and in this case the respondent had not filed such an application within the time. Section 168-A provides for bar on transfer of chak land during consolidation operations.

¶21

Be it that as it may, the learned Member of the Board of Revenue held that since the respondent was not made aware of the proviso appearing in the amending Act, he should be given a chance in the interest of justice to make good the defect that has occasioned. Hence, he gave liberty to the petitioner to make the necessary applications and pay the requisite amounts salami and all other dues in the State Government within six months of that order, failing which, the Original Order passed by the Assistant Collector was to be revived.

¶22

¶23

It is apparent from the record that by the time, the authorities initiated the proceedings for violation of Section 168-A, of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, the Section itself was deleted from the main Act. It is also not disputed that even after deletion of such proceedings, the affected persons were granted some liberty of making the same regularised by following such a procedure established as per the Act. The revenue authorities has not given a notice that he has such right and, therefore, in the interest of justice, the learned Member of the Board of Revenue, has passed a just and proper order giving an opportunity to the respondent to make good the deficiency.

¶24

Since, this writ application was filed, the respondent has not filed the requisite application, we dispose of the writ application giving liberty to the respondent to pay the requisite amounts and make the application within a period of 45 days from today. On such an application, the provision of law shall be applied and necessary order on merit shall be passed by the concerned authorities.

¶25

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶26

Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.

¶27

( S.K.Mish r a) Ju dge

¶28

KKS

¶29

¶30

State of Uttarakhand through District Magistrate,Haridwar. v. Abdul Razzaq

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Uttarakhand through District Magistrate,Haridwar. v. Abdul Razzaq

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Himanshu Chaudhary Vs Girish Chandra Chaudhary

Yashpal Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand

Ashok Kumar Lohni Vs Lalit Mohan Kandpal

Sri Mithilesh Dubey Vs Addl. District Judge/Ftc 6 Dehradun

National Insurance Company Limited Vs Smt. Deepa Devi

M/S Jai Sai Motors Pvt. Ltd. Vs Gaura Devi