Disposed¶20

Nazakat Ali Khan v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC3 Jun 2025SPA/267/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Nazakat Ali Khan v. State of Uttarakhand & others; Special Appeal No. 267 of 2024; High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital; G. Narendar, C.J.; Alok Mahra, J.; decided 3 June 2025; forced eviction; amendment of plaint; four weeks liberty; declaration of title Suit pending before Trial Court; time-bound disposal within eighteen months; proprietary right of title over land constitutionally recognized; appeal disposed with liberty; no costs.

What did the court decide?

Appeal disposed of with liberty reserved to the appellant to approach the Civil Court for amendment of the plaint (any amendment application filed within four weeks not to be rejected as belated); the Trial Court directed to hear and dispose of the pending title-declaration Suit within eighteen months; no order as to costs; pending applications, if any, disposed of. ¶20

Nazakat Ali Khan Vs State of Uttarakhand — Uttarakhand HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether the issues raised in the instant Special Appeal can be effectively canvassed and adjudicated before the Trial Court by letting appropriate evidence. +1 more

¶13

Court's answer

The issues raised in the instant Appeal can be effectively canvassed before the Trial Court by letting appropriate evidence.

¶13

Ratio / Principle

The factum of the appellant's eviction can be pleaded effectively and adjudicated by the Trial Court on the strength of the evidentiary material that may be placed before it.

¶18

Key takeaways

Liberty is reserved to the appellant to approach the Civil Court, if he so desires, for amendment of the plaint.ratio¶19
If an Application for amendment of the plaint is preferred within four weeks from the date of this judgment, the same shall not be rejected on the ground of being belated.ratio¶19
The proprietary right of title over the land is a constitutionally recognized right.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital (Division Bench of G. Narendar, C.J. and Alok Mahra, J.), per G. Narendar, C.J., disposed of Special Appeal No. 267 of 2024 filed by Nazakat Ali Khan against the State of Uttarakhand and others. Observing that the appellant already had a Suit pending before the Trial Court seeking declaration of his title over the property in question, the Court held that the issues raised in the Appeal could be effectively canvassed before the Trial Court by letting appropriate evidence, and that the factum of the appellant's forced eviction could be pleaded and adjudicated there on the strength of evidentiary material. Liberty was reserved to the appellant to approach the Civil Court for amendment of the plaint, with any amendment application preferred within four weeks not to be rejected as belated. Treating the proprietary right of title over land as a constitutionally recognized right, the Court directed the concerned Trial Court to hear and dispose of the Suit within eighteen months, without fail. No order as to costs; pending applications disposed of.

¶1

2025:UHC:4424-DB

¶2

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. G. NARENDAR AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK MAHRA 3 rd J UNE, 2025

¶3

SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 267 OF 2024

¶4

Nazakat Ali Khan …........Appellant.

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Uttarakhand & others …..Respondents

¶7

Counsel for the appellant : Mr. Siddharth Singh and Mr. D.S. Negi, learned counsel. Counsel for the State : Mr. P.C. Bisht, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel. Counsel for respondent No. 3 : Mr. Ashish Joshi, learned counsel.

¶8

JUDGMENT : ( per Mr. G. Narendar, C.J.)

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and

¶10

learned Government Advocate.

¶11

Learned Government Advocate would submit that

¶12

the appellant has already preferred a Suit seeking for a declaration of his title over the property in question and; that the said Suit is pending consideration.

¶13

In that view, we are of the opinion that the issues raised in the instant Appeal can also be effectively canvassed before the Trial Court by letting appropriate evidence.

¶14

Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the Suit was instituted much prior to the forced eviction of the appellant.

¶15

Be that as it may, the factum of the appellant’s

¶16

¶17

2025:UHC:4424-DB

¶18

eviction can be pleaded effectively and adjudicated by the Trial Court on the strength of the evidentiary material that may be placed before it.

¶19

In that view, the instant Appeal is disposed of by reserving liberty to the appellant to approach the Civil Court, if he so desires, for amendment of the plaint and if an Application for amendment is preferred within four weeks from today, the same shall not be rejected on the ground of being belated, and further as the proprietary right of title over the land is a constitutionally recognized right, we deem it appropriate to direct the concerned Trial Court to hear and dispose of the said Suit within eighteen months from today, without fail.

¶20

The Appeal stands ordered accordingly.

¶21

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶22

Pending application, if any, also stands disposed

¶23

of.

¶24

________________

¶25

G. NARENDAR, C.J.

¶26

_____________ ALOK MAHRA, J.

¶27

Dt: 3^rd June, 2025

¶28

NISHANT

¶29

NISHANT KUMAR Digitally signed by NISHANT KUMAR DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=ad3fcb5ca64340f5dd0a4c574afa0fd63133605ca57cdc00ec2b7462b452b326, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=7E81318F3B1BE7EAAC9370185F7C9C20892BC63A055CFD1961690560487E670C, cn=NISHANT KUMAR Date: 2025.06.10 11:03:13 +05'30'

¶30

Nazakat Ali Khan v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nazakat Ali Khan v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Ayush Construction Co. Vs Commissioner , State Goods and Services Tax

Constable 23 N P Ganesh Prasad Vs State of Uttarakhand

Champal Singh Rana Vs Union of India

Sukhjeet Kaur Vs State of Uttarakhand

Deepak Suyal Vs State of Uttarakhand

Nirmal Singh Alias Rajesh Kutal Vs State of Uttarakhand