Rajesh Rawat v. State of Uttarakhand and others

Annexure 4 to the writ petition.

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

3. It is the case of the petitioner that he and the husband of the respondent no.4 entered into the partnership for development and construction of the property. The husband of the respondent no.4 took a 50% of total cost of the project, which was Rs.1,49,51,740/- and the husband of the respondent no.4 did deposit only a sum of Rs.50 Lakh, but the husband of the respondent no.4 2 failed to pay the entire amount. Therefore, the agreement came to an end by efflux of time. But thereafter, according to the petitioner, the FIR was lodged against him and the respondent no.4 also lodged a complaint with the District Magistrate, Nainital in Janta Milan at Haldwani, who appointed the respondent no.3/ Secretary of the Authority as Nodal Officer for conducting an inquiry into the allegations made by the respondent no.4. Finally, according to the petitioner, by the impugned order, the respondent no.3, the Secretary of the Authority while exceeding his jurisdiction passed the impugned order restraining the sale and purchase of the property in dispute. This order is impugned.

4. The respondent no.4 has also filed a counter affidavit. According to it, on a proposal of the petitioner, the husband of the respondent no.4 entered into a business deal with him to purchase certain property at the cost of Rs.5 Crores and Rs.50 Lakh was paid in advance. But subsequently, the petitioner did not execute any agreement; on an inquiry, the petitioner came to know that the property in dispute was already mortgaged with the Bank against which the petitioner had already taken a loan and also the respondent no.4 came to know that as per the norms of the National Highways and Irrigation, construction cannot be done over the property. Thereafter, the respondent no.4 did file a complaint to the District Magistrate, on which, order of inquiry was passed on

06.11.2024 and one the same date, impugned order was passed. It is the case of the respondent no.4 that the petition is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed.

5. The respondent no.3, the Authority has also filed its counter affidavit and categorically stated that there is dispute with 3 respect of ownership and possession of a piece of land between the petitioner and the respondent no.4. On the complaint of the respondent no.4, an inquiry has already been ordered by the District Magistrate, which is still underway. It is the case of the respondent no.3, the Authority, that the impugned order was passed not primarily to protect the property of the respondent no.4, but to protect the interest of the property of the State Government. According to the respondent no.3/ the Secretary of the Authority the petition is misconceived and it deserves to be dismissed.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent no.3, the Secretary of the Authority has no jurisdiction to direct the Sub Registrar restraining the sale and purchase of the land in dispute.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondent no.3/the Secretary of the Authority may not pass an order restraining the Sub Registrar from sale and purchase of the property in dispute. He submits that based on the complaint of the respondent no.4, on 06.11.2024, the respondent no.3, the Secretary of the Authority passed another order, by which a committee was constituted to look into the dispute and submit its report within a week since then. It is submitted that the order of inquiry is valid. Inquiry is still underway and spot inspection has been done by the committee and the report was received by the respondent no.3/the Secretary of the Authority and who will be submitting a report shortly to the District Magistrate.

8. Learned counsel for the respondent no.4 would submit that the petitioner is in the habit of cheating people. The husband of 4 the respondent no.4 was persuaded to purchase the land by the petitioner and the petitioner had also taken Rs.50 Lakh in advance. But thereafter, he did not execute any agreement. It is submitted that the some part of the land does not belong to the petitioner. Some part of land has already been mortgaged with the bank on which the petitioner had taken loan. He submits that the impugned order is not an order as such. It is only a request made to the Sub-Registrar.

9. By the impugned order dated 06.11.2024, which is Annexure 4 to the writ petition, the respondent no.3/ the Secretary of the Authority has categorically directed the Sub Registrar that the sale and purchase of the property in dispute by the petitioner and his wife may be restrained. Admittedly, the respondent no.3/the Secretary of the Authority has no jurisdiction to pass such an order as has been admitted on behalf of the respondent no.3. Accordingly, the impugned order deserves to be set aside.

10. The impugned order is set aside.

11. Insofar as, another order dated 06.11.2024 is concerned, by which the respondent no.3/the Secretary of the Authority has ordered for an inquiry by the committee pursuant to the complaint made by the respondent no.4, that is different issue. That enquiry shall continue.

12. The writ petition is disposed of, accordingly. Jitendra (Ravindra Maithani, J.)

01.07.2025