Dismissed

Kripal Singh v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC17 Oct 2025WPMS/2908/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A petitioner cultivating Government land adjoining his bhumidhari land sought a direction to the District Magistrate, Dehradun, to propose its allotment to him. The Court held that scarce Government land is needed for public purposes like offices, hospitals and schools, and cannot be allotted to private individuals; it dismissed the writ petition.

What the court decided

AI extract

Kripal Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand — Land Acquisition | Uttarakhand HC (2025)

¶1

2025:UHC:9375

¶2

SL. No.	Date	Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures	COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS
			WPMS/2908/2025 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Mr. B.P. Nautiyal, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Mr. Mohd. Matlub, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Suyash Pant, Standing Counsel for the State/respondents.
			2. According to petitioner, he is cultivating Government land abutting his bhumidhari land for the last 18-20 years. In this writ petition, petitioner has sought a direction to the District Magistrate, Dehradun, to submit a proposal to
			State Government for allotting the said Government land to the petitioner. 3. Learned State Counsel has drawn attention
			of this Court to the sale deed of the land purchased by petitioner, where the boundaries of the land have been given.
			4. Perusal of the boundary reveals that petitioner’s land is abutting forest land on one
			side, Song river on the other side and on remaining two sides, there is a road and thereafter forest and land belonging to Smt. Shakumbari Riyal.
			5. Learned State Counsel is right in
			submitting that land is scarce in State of
			Uttarakhand and land is needed by the State

¶3

2025:UHC:9375

¶4

Government for opening of government offices,
hospital, schools etc.; therefore, Government
land cannot be allotted to a private individual.
6. This Court finds substance in the
submission made by learned State Counsel.
7. The direction, as prayed for, cannot be
granted by this Court. In fact, State Government
should discontinue such practice.
8. The writ petition fails and is dismissed.
(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 17.10.2025 Mahinder/

Kripal Singh v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Kripal Singh v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ms Malik Construction Vs Nagar Palika Parishad Manglour

Mahendra Singh Bhoj Vs State of Uttarakhand

Jitendra Kumar Vs State of Uttarakhand

Gulshan Vs State of Uttarakhand

Suresh Kumar Vs State of Uttarakhand

Prahlad Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand