Salekhchand and Another v. State of Uttarakhand and Others

Presence: 1. 2. Mr. Suyash Pant, learned Standing Counsel for the State. 3. Mr. Sachin Panwar, learned counsel for respondent no. 6. Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. (Oral).

1. The instant matter was listed yesterday i.e. on

03.03.2025; however, the learned counsel for the petitioner was not present, consequently, in the interest of justice the matter is posted for today.

2. Today, again the learned counsel for the petitioner is also not present.

3. The instant petition has been preferred by the petitioner with the following reliefs: “(a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 16.01.2021 passed by the respondent no. 3 in column 8, serial no. 41, of the land of the petitioners Khasra No. 211 area 0.287 hectare land situated village Sethpur, Tehsil Laksar District Haridwar. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of (b) certiorari to quash the impugned registered lease deed dated 19.04.2021 executed in the name of respondent no. 6 of the land of the petitioners Khasra No. 211 area 0.287 hectare land situated village Sethpur, Tehsil Laksar, District Haridwar. (c) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no. 2 and 5 to decide the 1 representation dated 05.07.2021 of the petitioner according to law. (d) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no. 1 to 5 not to interfere in the peaceful possession of the land of the petitioners Khasra No. 211 area 0.287 hectare land situated village Sethpur, Tehsil Laksar, District Haridwar. (e) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent nos. 1 to 5 not to change the nature and revenue record of the land of the petitioners Khasra No. 211 area 0.287 hectare land situated village Sethpur, Tehsil Laksar District Haridwar.”

4. As it appears from the relief clause, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 16.01.2021 passed by respondent no. 3, whereby, the land falling in Khasra No. 211 measuring 0.287 hectare land situated at Village Sethpur, Tehsil Laksar, District Haridwar was allotted to respondent no. 6. In addition to this, the petitioner is also challenging the registered lease deed dated

19.04.2021 executed in the name of respondent no. 6. In addition to this, the petitioner is also praying for that the official respondent i.e respondent nos. 1 to 5 may be directed not to interfere in the peaceful possession of the land of the petitioners.

5. The main contention of the petitioner as stated in the petition is that the Asami Patta was allotted to the father of the petitioner in the year1975 since he belongs to a schedule caste community. In 1988 the father of the petitioner died and thereafter the name of the petitioners were recorded in the revenue record on 24.10.1988. It is further contended that the petitioners’ father was in possession over the land since 1975 till his death and thereafter the petitioner is in possession over the land, wherein, he is cultivating “Bajra crops”. It is further contended that when the said land was allotted to the petitioners’ father it was barren land and thereafter by expending huge money the land was used for agricultural purposes. It is further contended that without giving notice to the petitioner the order 2 impugned was passed on 16.01.2021 by which the land of the petitioners was allotted to respondent no. 6 on lease for fishery purposes for 29 years. Thereafter, pursuant to the order dated

16.01.2021 passed by the Sub Collector, Laksar, District Haridwar, the Tehsildar, Laksar issued instructions to the Deputy Registrar, Laksar to proceed with the registration of the lease and subsequent thereto on19.04.2021 the lease deed was registered in the name of respondent no. 6.

6. It is contended in the petition that without giving any notice and opportunity of hearing the lease was granted to the respondent no. 6. It is further contended that no due publication of the lease proceedings were published in the daily newspaper. It is further contended that the petitioners made a representation to the Commissioner, Pauri Garhwal, raising his grievances but no decision has been taken.

7. A detail counter affidavit was filed by respondent nos. 1 to 4, wherein, in paragraph 6 it is contended that the SDM, Laksar by order dated 20.02.1999 expunged the Asami entry of the petitioners and as such the petitioners have no right over the land in question. In support of this, the copy of Jot Chak Akar patr-45, Jot Chak Akar Patr-41 and Khatoni of 1403 fasli to 1408 fasli also placed on record in the counter affidavit.

8. It is further contended that the order expunging the entry of the petitioner was never been challenged by the petitioners.

9. Though, the rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the petitioners; however, this fact has not been denied that the entry, which was expunged on 20.02.1999 was never been challenged by the petitioner. After gone through the entire record and further after hearing the learned State counsel Mr. Suyash Pant and the 3 counsel for the respondent no. 6, this court is of the view that since the order expunging the entry of the petitioner dated

20.02.1999 was never been challenged by the petitioner, therefore, no right is accrued in favour of the petitioners over the land in question.

10. Apart from this, the lease was given to the petitioners for fishery purposes and the same was registered, therefore, in such an eventuality, when the order expunging the entry of the petitioners was not challenged the lease deed granted in favour of respondent no. 6 cannot be quashed.

11. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the instant writ petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.

12. The interim order passed on 22.09.2021 is vacated. The official respondents are directed to proceed further in accordance with law. (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.)

04.03.2025 PR 4