Prem Singh v. State of Uttarakhand others

Uttarakhand and Others (“the first petition”), which was decided on

05.09.2017, with the directions to the Secretary, Irrigation, State of Uttarakhand, to decide the representations made by the appellant by a speaking/detailed order. In fact, in that petition, the appellant had sought two prayers, namely, (i) the 693.83 acres of land given to the displaced persons be transferred to the revenue department so that the agriculturists may get their land rights in the property for all purposes including taking loan, etc.; and (ii) the remaining

510.15 acres of land be also given to the agriculturists.

3. Pursuant to the order passed in the first petition, the representation of the appellant was decided on 13.04.2018, by the Principal Secretary, Irrigation, Government of Uttarakhand, (“the order dated 13.04.2018”) wherein, it was held that insofar as giving of Bhumidari Rights to the agriculturists with regard to 693.83 acres of land is concerned, proposal has already been submitted to the Forest Department and once the process is complete, the land shall be recorded in the revenue record. On second issue, i.e. with regard to the transfer of remaining 510.15 acres of land, the order dated 13.04.2018, in Para 2 records that, in fact, out of acquired land, 685 acres of land had been given to the agriculturists, out of which 33.7 acres of land was illegally possessed by 36 persons. They were left out, and the out of remaining 651.22 acres land, 3 land was earmarked for market, residential complexes, etc. It gives details as to how land was distributed. The order dated 13.04.2018 further states that out of 249 agriculturists, 93 agriculturists, who had less than 19 bighas land were given complete land, and 120 agriculturists, who had more than 19 bighas land was acquired, were given land as per the prevalent policy, and lastly there were 36 agriculturists, who were unauthorizedly occupying the government land, they were neither entitled to any compensation nor to any land. This order was challenged in the petition. The writ court, after considering all the facts, observed that the appellant had though come in the representative capacities, does not meet requirement as such. The writ court insofar as the transfer of land to the revenue department is concerned, a proposal has already been forwarded to the forest department, and it is under consideration. With regard to the transfer of any land, the writ court found that the order dated

13.04.2018 is a considered order, which does not warrant any interference of the court. In fact, the writ court also found that the claim has been made at a highly belated stage. This is impugned.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the respondents have repeatedly accepted the claim of the appellant that 510.15 acres remaining land is to be given to the agriculturists of the Village Copa. He refers to various documents to argue that, 4 in fact, the Land Acquisition Officer has also made an attempt to reveal that 510.15 acres of land is balance, which is to be given to the agriculturists. It is argued that at the relevant time, Special Land Acquisition Officer has also passed an award recording therein that no compensation is to be given to the persons, whose lands have been acquired, in fact, they should be given a land in lieu of the land so acquired. Therefore, it is argued that, in fact, the writ court did not advert to the factual aspects and the impugned judgment and order is not in accordance with law.

6. On the other hand, learned State Counsel submits that the appellant has no claim; he was not bhumidar of the land; he was on the government land only; a land, in lieu of the land, was given as per the prevalent policy; at the relevant time, no objections were raised by any of the agriculturists, and after creation of State of Uttarakhand, for more than 15 years, for the first time, a writ petition has been filed, which is much delayed. Hence, there is no substance in the special appeal, and it deserves to be dismissed.

7. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant submits that what were the prevalent policies at the relevant time has not been disclosed by the State; delay has not been objected to in the order dated 13.04.2018.

8. In the petition that has been filed by the appellant, nothing specific has been recorded. Even the appellant is not claiming on behalf of the others. What was the land that belongs to the appellant, which was acquired? It has not been specifically given. How much land was given to the appellant in lieu of the land, which was acquired from him? It has also not been given. There are 5 allegations that total 1203.98 acres of land was acquired out of which only 693.83 acres of land was given. What were the names of those agriculturists, whose land was acquired? How much land of each of the agriculturists was acquired? How much land to each of those agriculturists was given? It has also not been given by the appellant.

9. In the communication that has been referred to by the appellant, the initial communication speaks that the land that has been given to the agriculturists, i.e. 693.83 acres of land, in lieu of the land acquired, be transferred to the revenue department. Initially, for a long, it has never been demanded by anyone that some additional land is to be given. At the cost of repetition, it may be stated that the appellant is not clear as to how much of his land was acquired? How much land was given in lieu of land acquired of him, and what is the deficiency? The appellant has claimed that he or others should be given the remaining land of 510.15 acres. There are no specifics about it. The land was acquired sometimes in the year 1972. After much delay, the first petition was filed in the year

2015. As such, no explanation has come forward. The only explanation is that there have been representations. It does not absolve the delay. And this is not delay, this is exceptionally long delay.

10. How the appellant represents the villagers, even it is not clear. The representation that was filed pursuant to the order dated 05.09.2017, passed in the first petition, was decided on

13.04.2018. In Para 2 of it, there are specifics as to who was given land and how it was given. It records that 93 agriculturists were 6 given total land that was acquired from them, and there were 120 such agriculturists, who had more than 19 begas of land, but they were given land in lieu of the acquired land, as per the prevalent policy. And it also specifically records that there were 36 agriculturists, who were unauthorised occupants. They were not given any land. Even the appellant is not clear as to whom does he represent, to the 120 agriculturists or the 36 agriculturists? Because as per this order dated 13.04.2018, those 36 unauthorised occupants were not entitled to any land in lieu of any acquisition.

11. Having considered, this Court is of the view that the impugned judgment and order does not warrant any interference. Accordingly, the special appeal deserves to be dismissed.

12. The appeal is dismissed. (Alok Mahra, J.) (Ravindra Maithani, J.) Ravi Bisht

20.08.2025