Atul Singhal v. State of Uttarakhand & Ors.

assisted by Mr. J.S. Bisht, Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Paresh Tripathi, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand and Mr. Naresh Pant, Advocate for respondent nos. 2 and 3.

2. The petitioner before this Court is aggrieved by order dated 19.5.2006 passed by respondent no. 4 which is the Prescribed Authority of Regulated Area i.e. Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Bageshwar. By the said order, respondent no. 4 has refused to grant an N.O.C. (No Objection Certificate) to the Uttar Pradesh Financial Corporation i.e. respondent no. 2 (from hereinafter referred to as (cid:147)Finance Corporation(cid:148)) which the Finance Corporation sought from respondent no. 4 consequent to auction sale given by respondent no. 2 in favour of the petitioner. 2

3. Brief facts of the case are that there is a land situated at (cid:147)Kausani(cid:148) in Bageshwar, Uttarakhand which was under occupation of a person called Yashpal Singh Mehra (i.e. respondent no. 5). Vide an order dated

13.10.1977 passed by the Revenue Authorities regarding a piece of land being Khata Khatauni No. 32, Khet No. 5051 M, 5052 M and 5054 M, it was recorded that respondent no. 5 is in occupation of the said land which was in category 5. Category 5 is the land which belongs to the State Government. In the year 1991, Yashpal Singh Mehra moved an application before the revenue authorities under Section 33 read with Section 39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act which was primarily for correction of mistake in the annual revenue register. It was registered as Case No. 34 of 1990-91 wherein a telegraphic short order has been passed by the concerned authority on 7.2.1991 stating that an application has been moved by Yashpal Singh (i.e. respondent no. 5) for correction of mistakes in the annual revenue records and he has ensured that earlier entries which were made for the land (where the land was shown as category 5 land) was done by mistake and it is now being converted into category 1 land. Category 1 land would now mean a land with (cid:147)bhumidhari(cid:148) and transferable rights i.e. complete ownership on the land. Immediately thereafter the original tenure holder or the person in whose name the land was so recorded, namely, Yashpal Singh moved an application seeking permission for sale of the said property as he intended to sell the said property to one Neeraj Tiwari and Anil Mungali. On such an application the revenue authorities realized that the order dated

7.2.1991 was passed due to mistake or for some other 3 reasons as the land was fact State property. Consequently a formal application was moved for review of the order passed on 7.2.1991 which was ultimately reviewed on 4.8.1992 by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ranikhet who passed a detail order after hearing all the parties in which he has given a finding that the land in question actually belongs to the State Government and the sole purpose for moving an application for converting the land from category 5 to category 1 is that this land is situated at Kaushani which during the course of time has become a tourist hub and therefore the price of the property has increased manifold. The order dated

7.2.1991 was passed keeping the authorities totally in dark. Once the authorities realized that the order dated

7.2.1991 was passed due to mistake, proceedings were initiated to review that order and the concerned authority exercising its power under Section 202 has passed an order on 4.8.1992 cancelling the order dated 7.2.1991, thus reverting the status of the land from category 1 to category 5.

4. However, before this order could be passed the original tenure holder Sri Yashpal Singh Mehra had sold the land to Sri Neeraj Tiwari and Anil Mungali who already took a loan from the Finance Corporation giving the land as prime collateral security. Sri Neeraj Tiwari and Sri Anil Mungali ultimately became the defaulter to Finance Corporation and the Finance Corporation invoked its power under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act and sold this property by way of auction in order to recover this loan. This property was purchased by the present petitioner by way of an auction of which a sale certificate was given to the petitioner on 4

2.5.2006. However, much water had already flown during this period as we have seen that the land which was given to the Finance Corporation as a prime collateral security against the loan actually belongs to the State Government! When the Finance Corporation sought permission from the Prescribed Authority for execution of the sale deed in favour of the petitioner, the same was refused to the Finance Corporation by the Prescribed Authority vide order dated 19.5.2006 stating that it was a category 5 land i.e. Government land and therefore such a permission cannot be granted. It is this order which is presently being challenged before this Court.

5. Learned Senior Advocate appearing petitioner Mr. Sharad Sharma during the course of argument has also drawn attention of this Court to an order dated 13.4.1975 which was passed by the Board of Revenue, Allahabad declaring that certain plots of land in Kausani, Almora (as it was then) were declared as category 7 which would mean a land given on lease to someone.

6. Be that as it may, there is no reference to such finding before any authority and this Court cannot take cognizance of the said order, at this stage. Moreover, this Court is of the view that the order dated 13.4.1975 precedes all the order of the revenue authority passed in the year 1992 or even prior to it, and has therefore no relevance.

7. Considering all the aspects of the matter and more particularly the order dated 4.8.1992 which is a detail order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ranikhet 5 in which he has assigned the precise and cogent reasons for passing the order as well as the reasons for holding that the land is category 5 land i.e. Government land, this Court is of the view that no inference can be made in the said order, as the Prescribed Authority has rightly refused to grant the permission for execution of sale deed in favour of the petitioner as no such permission can be granted to the petitioner or the Finance Corporation since the land in question is actually a Government property.

8. In view of the above, writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.

9. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

10. No order as to costs. Avneet (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.)

3.10.2012