High Court · 2025

Learned St at e Counsel by referring t o t he first report subm it t ed by Sub Divisional Magist rat e cont ained in Annexure- 1 subm it s t hat earlier also, pet it ioners had applied in t he year 2019 for regularizat ion of t heir possession and t he said applicat ion was also rej ect ed by Dist rict Magist rat e on 04.01.2020. 5

10. Learned St at e Counsel support s t he rej ect ion order by cont ending t hat in view of st at ut ory bar, Dist rict Magist rat e was j ust ified in not acceding t o t he request m ade by pet it ioners for regularizat ion of t heir illegal possession. He subm it s t hat Governm ent policy cont em plat es grant of bhum idhari right s, aft er regularizat ion of possession over Class- I V land, but due t o st at ut ory m andat e cont ained in Sect ion 132 of Zam indari Abolit ion and Land Reform s Act , bhum idhari right cannot be grant ed in respect of land m eant for use by t he general public, including wat er body. Learned St at e Counsel referred t o t he report s cont ained as Annexure nos. 1 & 2 t o t he writ pet it ion, for cont ending t hat t he land in quest ion is covered by sand and not for cult ivat ion and only m uskm elon, cucum ber, wat erm elon can be grown t hereupon. Learned St at e Counsel furt her subm it s t hat Governm ent policy cont em plat es regularizat ion of possession over cert ain cat egory of land, and t he applicat ion m ade by pet it ioners for regularizat ion was right ly rej ect ed, as land sought t o be regularized by t hem , did not fall in t hat cat egory. He furt her subm it s t hat anyone, who has encroached upon Governm ent land do not have vest ed or st at ut ory right of 6 regularizat ion of his possession and regularizat ion is at t he sole discret ion of St at e Governm ent . He furt her subm it s t hat in t he absence of any st at ut ory provision providing right t o be considered for regularizat ion, said right cannot be enforced by filing a writ pet it ion.

11. This Court finds subst ance in t he subm ission m ade by learned St at e Counsel.

12. Bhum idhari right cannot be given over wat er body land, as held by Hon’ble Suprem e Court in t he case of Hinch Lal Tiwari v. Kam ala Devi and ot hers, report ed as ( 2001) 6 SCC 496. Paragraph nos. 13 & 14 of t he said j udgm ent is reproduced below: t hat forest s, t o not ice im port ant t he com m unit y t he m at erial “ 1 3 . I t t anks, resources of ponds, hillock, m ount ain et c. are nat ure's bount y. They m aint ain delicat e ecological balance. They need t o be prot ect ed for a proper and healt hy environm ent which enables people t o enj oy a qualit y life which is t he essence of t he guarant eed right under Art icle 21 of t he Const it ut ion. The Governm ent , including t he t o 13, Revenue Aut horit ies having not iced t hat a pond is falling in disuse, should have best owed t heir at t ent ion t o develop t he sam e which would, on one hand, have prevent ed ecological bet t er disast er and environm ent for t he benefit of t he public at large. Such v igil is t he best prot ect ion against knavish at t em pt s t o seek allot m ent in non- abadi sit es. t he ot her provided i.e. Respondent s 11 1 4 . For t he aforem ent ioned reasons, we set aside t he order of t he High Court , rest ore t he order of t he Addit ional Collect or dat ed 25- 2- 1999 confirm ed by t he Com m issioner on 12- 3- 1999. Consequent ly, Respondent s 1 t o 10 shall vacat e t he land, which was allot t ed t o t hem , wit hin six m ont hs from t oday . They will, however, be perm it t ed t he m at erial of t he houses which t hey have const ruct ed on t he said land. I f Respondent s 1 t o 10 do not vacat e t he land wit hin t he said period t he official respondent s i.e. Respondent s 11 t o 13 shall dem olish t ake away t o 7 law. The St at e t he const ruct ion and get possession of t he said land in accordance wit h including Respondent s 11 t o 13 shall rest ore t he pond, develop and m aint ain t he sam e as a recreat ional spot w hich will undoubt edly be t he villagers. Furt her it will also help in m aint aining ecological balance and prot ect ing t he environm ent in regard t o which t his Court has repeat edly expressed it s concern. Such m easures m ust begin at t he grass- root level if t hey were t o becom e t he nat ion's pride.” int erest of t he best

13. There is no pleading in t he writ pet it ion regarding ext ent of pet it ioners’ land holding wit hin Ut t arakhand St at e, t herefore t he oral subm ission t hat pet it ioners belong t o weaker sect ion of societ y cannot be accept ed. The request m ade by pet it ioners regularizat ion of t heir possession was rej ect ed t hrice by t he Com pet ent Aut horit y, based on report s subm it t ed by concerned Sub Divisional Magist rat e. The earlier orders passed by Dist rict Magist rat e have at t ained finalit y.

14. Pet it ioners quest ion correct ness of t he report subm it t ed by Sub Divisional Magist rat e, however t his Court do not find any inconsist ency in t he report s subm it t ed by Sub Divisional Magist rat e from t im e t o t im e. Even ot herwise also, issue of correct ness of report s, cannot be gone int o in proceedings under Art icle 226 of t he Const it ut ion.

15. This Court while exercising writ j urisdict ion does not act as Court of Appeal. Scope of j udicial review of adm inist rat ive act ion is lim it ed t o exam ining 8 t he legalit y and fairness of t he decision m aking process. I n t he case of Punj ab St at e Power Corporat ion Lim it ed and anot her v. Em t a Coal Lim it ed, report ed as ( 2022) 2 SCC 1, Hon’ble Suprem e Court has sum m arized t he legal posit ion on scope of j udicial review in paragraph nos. 33 t o 37, which are reproduced below: - “ 3 3 . I t could t hus be seen t hat w hile exercising powers of j udicial review, t he Court is not concerned wit h t he ult im at e decision but t he decision- m aking process. The lim it ed areas in which t he Court can enquire are as t o whet her a decision- m aking aut horit y has exceeded it s powers, com m it t ed an error of law or com m it t ed breach of principle of nat ural j ust ice. I t can exam ine as t o whet her an aut horit y has reached a decision which no reasonable t ribunal would have reached or has abused it s powers. I t is not for t he Court t o det er m ine whet her a part icular policy or a part icular decision t aken in t he fulfilm ent of t hat policy is fair. The Court will exam ine as t o whet her t he decision of an aut horit y is irrat ionalit y or procedural vit iat ed by im propriet y. While exam ining t he quest ion of irrat ionalit y, t he Court will be guided by t he principle t he Wednesbury of Wednesbury. While applying principle, t he Court will exam ine as t o whet her t he decision of an aut horit y is such t hat no aut horit y properly direct ing it self on t he relevant law and act ing reasonably could have reached it . illegalit y, t hat t aken t he decision 3 4 . Applying t he aforesaid principle, it can clearly be t he decision of PSPCL dat ed 6- 4- 2018, cannot be quest ioned on t he ground of illegalit y or procedural im propriet y. The decision accordance wit h Sect ion 11 of t he said Act and aft er following t he principle of nat ural j ust ice. The lim it ed area t hat would be available for at t ack is as t o whet her t he Wednesbury principle. Can it be said t hat t he decision t aken by t he aut horit y is such t hat no reasonable person would have t aken it ? No doubt , t hat t he aut horit y has also relied on Clause 12.4.1 of t he Allot m ent Agreem ent , however, t hat is not t he only ground on which t he represent at ion of EMTA is rej ect ed. No doubt , EMTA's represent at ion, PSPCL has referred t o Clause 12.4.1 of t he Allot m ent Agreem ent which requires t he coal m ines t o be developed t hrough cont ract ors who were considering is hit by t hat 9 select ed t hrough a com pet it ive bidding process, however, t hat is not t he only ground on which t he represent at ion of EMTA is rej ect ed. I t will be relevant t o refer t o t he following observat ions in t he order passed by PSPCL dat ed 6- 4- 2018: “ Moreover, t here is no reason why com pet it ive bidding process for t he purposes of elicit ing t he best operat or be not preferred. Needless t o m ent ion t hat as t he com posit ion wit h r espect t o capit al/ revenue alt oget her invest m ent different , hence t he bidding param et ers have ent irely changed.” 3 5 . I t could t hus be seen t hat PSPCL has decided t o go in for com pet it ive bidding process for t he purpose of elicit ing t he best operat or. I t has furt her not iced t hat t he com posit ion wit h respect t o capit al/ revenue invest m ent is alt oget her different . Hence, t he bidding param et ers have ent irely changed. I t has furt her referred t o t he decision of t his Court wherein it has been held t hat t he allot m ent should be t hrough com pet it ive bidding process. We ask a quest ion t o ourselves, as t o whet her t he said reasoning can be said t o be irrat ional or arbit rary. A policy decision t o get t he best operat or at t he best price, cannot be said t o be a decision which no reasonable person would t ake in his affairs. I n t hat view of t he m at t er, t he at t ack on t he order/ let t er dat ed 6- 4- 2018, is wit hout m erit . 3 6 . I nsofar as t he cont ent ion of Shri Rohat gi w it h regard t o t he huge invest m ent being m ade by EMTA is concerned, t he said Act it self provides rem edy for seeking com pensat ion apart from t he ot her rem edies t hat are available in law. I n t hat view of t he m at t er, we are not im pressed wit h t he argum ent s advanced in t hat behalf. 3 7 . I n t he result , t he im pugned j udgm ent and order passed by t he High Court of Punj ab and Haryana is unsust ainable t herefore allowed and t he j udgm ent and order passed by t he High Court of Punj ab and Haryana dat ed 25- 1- 2019, is quashed and set aside. Pending I A( s) , if any, shall st and disposed of accordingly.” law. The appeals are

16. I n view of t he aforesaid legal posit ion, t his Court do not find any reason t o int erfere wit h t he decision t aken by Dist rict Magist rat e on t he request m ade by pet it ioners regularizat ion of t heir unaut horized occupat ion over public land. I n view of 10 provision cont ained in Sect ion 132 of Zam indari Abolit ion & Land Reform s Act , 1950, bhum idhari right in respect of public ut ilit y land/ wat er body cannot be conferred upon any person. The decision t aken by t he Dist rict Magist rat e is based on fact ual report s subm it t ed by Sub Divisional Magist rat e and correct ness of t he report cannot be gone in writ proceedings.

17. Accordingly, t he writ pet it ion fails and dism issed. ( M a n o j K u m a r Ti w a r i , J.) Dt : 08.10.2025 Navin NAVEEN CHANDRA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3be23325146e76a0642bdf4943fb9046f487df006da82a1 31bb4e4403d3c0a15, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=18167EEFB5CA8CFFD421A103819DA875643AF56 D653D095C6ED9A86DAAB21CE5, cn=NAVEEN CHANDRA 11