Shashank Sharma v. State of Uttarakhand and others

The writ petition has been filed by the appellant on the ground that he is owner of the property situated at No.24 Rajpur Road, Dehradun (New No.16, Rajpur Road, Dehradun) (“the land”). The State of Uttarakhand had issued a notification for acquisition of a land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (“the Act”) and possession of the land was taken way back on 17.03.2006. The appellant approached for compensation, but he was told that the land is not required by the State Government. Therefore, the 2 appellant filed the writ petition seeking directions to the respondents to pay the compensation of the land of the appellant as well as issue directions to the respondents so as not to de-notify the land from acquisition under Section 48(1) of the Act.

4. The respondents have filed their counter affidavits. According to the State of Uttarakhand, pursuant to the judgment dated 06.11.2019 passed by this Court in WPMS No.2986 of 2018, Rajiv Berry and others Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others, a decision has been taken that the land is not required to be acquired now. Therefore, a de-notification has already been issued on

09.12.2019.

5. The respondent no.7/Inder Singh has filed separate counter affidavit. It is the case of the respondent no.7 that he is owner of the land in possession; the sale-deed of the land was executed in his favour pursuant to the judgment and decree dated

31.03.2016, passed in Original Suit No.179 of 2001, Shri Inder Singh Vs. Sandeep Goyal and others, by the court of Additional Civil Judge Second (Sr. Div.), Dehradun (“the suit”) and sale consideration of Rs.2,57,50,000 has already been withdrawn by the appellant. It is also the case of the respondent no.7 that the land in question has already been de-notified by the State Government by invoking Section 101 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Settlement Act, 2013 (“the 2013 Act”).

6. It is further the case of the respondent no.7 that against the judgment and decree dated 31.03.2016, passed in the 3 suit, the petitioner did file First Appeal No.51 of 2016, Shashank Sharma vs. Indra Singh (“first appeal”) in this Court, which has been rejected under Order VII Rule 11(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”) vide judgment and order dated

16.12.2016. Thereafter, the appellant filed recall application for recalling the judgment dated 16.12.2016, passed in the first appeal, which was also rejected by this Court’s order dated 27.11.2020. This order dated 27.11.2020, passed in the first appeal, was challenged by the appellant before the Hon’ble Supreme Court by way of filing SLP (Civil) Diary No.14241 of 2021, Shashank Sharma Vs. Inder Singh, which has been dismissed on 19.08.2021. Therefore, it is the case of the respondent no.7 that the appellant has no locus in the case.

7. After filing the counter affidavit the appellant filed an amendment application and sought to add certain grounds with the additional prayer so as to challenge the notification dated

19.12.2019, by which, the land was de-notified under Section 101 of the 2013 Act.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that during the pendency of the writ petition, when counter affidavit was filed by the respondents, it has come to the notice of the appellant that the land has already been de-notified under Section 101 of 2013 Act. Therefore, the amendment is necessary for just disposal of the case.

9. On the other hand, learned State Counsel would submit that the appellant has no locus to file the writ petition even 4 the land has already been transferred by virtue of a sale-deed in favour of the respondent no.7, pursuant to the judgment and decree passed in the suit, which has been confirmed up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Therefore, the appellant has no locus/interest left in the land.

10. Learned counsel for the respondent no.7 would submit that he had entered into an agreement to purchase the land and when the land was not sold to him, he had filed the suit, which was decreed on 31.03.2016, against which, the first appeal was dismissed with costs and subsequently, the SLP has already been dismissed. He submits that the appellant has not come up with clean hands; on the one hand, post execution of the decree passed in the suit, he has received Rs.2,57,50,000/- and on the other hand, now, he is pursuing for compensation. Therefore, he has no locus and, in fact, the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

11. The appellant claims his rights on the land. The fact remains that with regard to the land, the respondent no.7 had filed a suit, which was decreed on 31.03.2016. The petitioner was not unaware of it. He was party in the suit. He challenged the judgment and decree dated 31.03.2016, passed in the suit and challenged it in the first appeal, which was rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(c) of CPC. An application to recall that order was also rejected. The things did not stop here. The appellant challenged the order passed in the first appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court on 19.08.2021 dismissed the SLP. It may be noted that in the first appeal, the application of the appellant was rejected with Rs.10,000/- costs. 5

12. The land has already been transferred in favour of the respondent no.7 by the operation of law, by the judgment and decree passed in the suit, which was confirmed in the first appeal as well as by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Therefore, in fact, the appellant has no claim with regard to the land. Accordingly, the appeal deserves to be dismissed and at the same time, since the appellant has no interest left in the matter qua the land, the writ petition also deserves to be dismissed as keeping the writ petition pending would be nothing, but abuse of the process of law.

13. The appeal as well as the writ petition is dismissed. (Alok Mahra, J.) (Ravindra Maithani, J.) 26.08.2025 Sanjay SANJAY KANOJIA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=e50e50b49596520698eff87e0a08bbd 504686df4d1afc60f54a287831dec46fe, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=26EEB7122ED0DD23233A255D D8EC450A84B515A087CAEFD1B3179A7DEAE 40699, cn=SANJAY KANOJIA

The writ petition has been filed by the appellant on the ground that he is owner of the property situated at No.24 Rajpur Road, Dehradun (New No.16, Rajpur Road, Dehradun) (“the land”). The State of Uttarakhand had issued a notification for acquisition of a land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (“the Act”) and possession of the land was taken way back on 17.03.2006. The appellant approached for compensation, but he was told that the land is not required by the State Government. Therefore, the 2 appellant filed the writ petition seeking directions to the respondents to pay the compensation of the land of the appellant as well as issue directions to the respondents so as not to de-notify the land from acquisition under Section 48(1) of the Act.

4. The respondents have filed their counter affidavits. According to the State of Uttarakhand, pursuant to the judgment dated 06.11.2019 passed by this Court in WPMS No.2986 of 2018, Rajiv Berry and others Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others, a decision has been taken that the land is not required to be acquired now. Therefore, a de-notification has already been issued on

09.12.2019.

5. The respondent no.7/Inder Singh has filed separate counter affidavit. It is the case of the respondent no.7 that he is owner of the land in possession; the sale-deed of the land was executed in his favour pursuant to the judgment and decree dated

31.03.2016, passed in Original Suit No.179 of 2001, Shri Inder Singh Vs. Sandeep Goyal and others, by the court of Additional Civil Judge Second (Sr. Div.), Dehradun (“the suit”) and sale consideration of Rs.2,57,50,000 has already been withdrawn by the appellant. It is also the case of the respondent no.7 that the land in question has already been de-notified by the State Government by invoking Section 101 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Settlement Act, 2013 (“the 2013 Act”).

6. It is further the case of the respondent no.7 that against the judgment and decree dated 31.03.2016, passed in the 3 suit, the petitioner did file First Appeal No.51 of 2016, Shashank Sharma vs. Indra Singh (“first appeal”) in this Court, which has been rejected under Order VII Rule 11(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”) vide judgment and order dated

16.12.2016. Thereafter, the appellant filed recall application for recalling the judgment dated 16.12.2016, passed in the first appeal, which was also rejected by this Court’s order dated 27.11.2020. This order dated 27.11.2020, passed in the first appeal, was challenged by the appellant before the Hon’ble Supreme Court by way of filing SLP (Civil) Diary No.14241 of 2021, Shashank Sharma Vs. Inder Singh, which has been dismissed on 19.08.2021. Therefore, it is the case of the respondent no.7 that the appellant has no locus in the case.

7. After filing the counter affidavit the appellant filed an amendment application and sought to add certain grounds with the additional prayer so as to challenge the notification dated

19.12.2019, by which, the land was de-notified under Section 101 of the 2013 Act.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that during the pendency of the writ petition, when counter affidavit was filed by the respondents, it has come to the notice of the appellant that the land has already been de-notified under Section 101 of 2013 Act. Therefore, the amendment is necessary for just disposal of the case.

9. On the other hand, learned State Counsel would submit that the appellant has no locus to file the writ petition even 4 the land has already been transferred by virtue of a sale-deed in favour of the respondent no.7, pursuant to the judgment and decree passed in the suit, which has been confirmed up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Therefore, the appellant has no locus/interest left in the land.

10. Learned counsel for the respondent no.7 would submit that he had entered into an agreement to purchase the land and when the land was not sold to him, he had filed the suit, which was decreed on 31.03.2016, against which, the first appeal was dismissed with costs and subsequently, the SLP has already been dismissed. He submits that the appellant has not come up with clean hands; on the one hand, post execution of the decree passed in the suit, he has received Rs.2,57,50,000/- and on the other hand, now, he is pursuing for compensation. Therefore, he has no locus and, in fact, the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

11. The appellant claims his rights on the land. The fact remains that with regard to the land, the respondent no.7 had filed a suit, which was decreed on 31.03.2016. The petitioner was not unaware of it. He was party in the suit. He challenged the judgment and decree dated 31.03.2016, passed in the suit and challenged it in the first appeal, which was rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(c) of CPC. An application to recall that order was also rejected. The things did not stop here. The appellant challenged the order passed in the first appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court on 19.08.2021 dismissed the SLP. It may be noted that in the first appeal, the application of the appellant was rejected with Rs.10,000/- costs. 5

12. The land has already been transferred in favour of the respondent no.7 by the operation of law, by the judgment and decree passed in the suit, which was confirmed in the first appeal as well as by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Therefore, in fact, the appellant has no claim with regard to the land. Accordingly, the appeal deserves to be dismissed and at the same time, since the appellant has no interest left in the matter qua the land, the writ petition also deserves to be dismissed as keeping the writ petition pending would be nothing, but abuse of the process of law.

13. The appeal as well as the writ petition is dismissed. (Alok Mahra, J.) (Ravindra Maithani, J.) 26.08.2025 Sanjay SANJAY KANOJIA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=e50e50b49596520698eff87e0a08bbd 504686df4d1afc60f54a287831dec46fe, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=26EEB7122ED0DD23233A255D D8EC450A84B515A087CAEFD1B3179A7DEAE 40699, cn=SANJAY KANOJIA