High Court · 2025

Pet it ioners have challenged t he order dat ed

03.11.2022, passed by Collect or, Udham singh Nagar, in proceedings under Sect ion 6-A of U.P. Governm ent Est at es Thekedari Abolit ion Act , 1958 ( hereinaft er referred t o as ‘GETA Act ’) , as am ended from t im e t o t im e. Pet it ioners allege t hat t he order passed by Collect or is not in accordance wit h paragraph no. 29 of t he j udgm ent , rendered by learned Single Judge of t his Court in Writ Pet it ion ( M/ S) No. 963 of 2005 and ot her connect ed pet it ions. Paragraph No. 29 of t he said j udgm ent is ext ract ed below: - “ 29. The only argum ent advanced by t he learned counsel for t he pet it ioners, which can be said t o be accept able, t hat 30 acres area has been wrongly m ent ioned in t he not ice and, t herefore, on t his count , t he not ice is not valid. The im pugned not ice issued by t he Collect or, on t his count only, is set aside. Writ Pet it ion No. 962 of 2005 ( MS) and Writ Pet it ion No. 963 of 2005 ( MS) are part ly allowed and t he Collect or, Udham Singh Nagar, is direct ed accordance wit h law and in view of Sect ion 6- A, quot ed above, t he ceiling area and separat ion of surplus area and t o t ake st eps accordingly against t hose t enure holders, who were r ecorded at t he t im e of det erm inat ion of lease or t heir successors in int erest .” init iat e appropr iat e proceedings for det erm inat ion of t o

3. Learned senior counsel appearing t he pet it ioners relies upon order dat ed 02.04.2014, passed by coordinat e Bench of t his Court in Special Appeal No. 62 of 2014. Paragraph no. 1 of t he said order is ext ract ed below: - t aken by t he St at e, which was “ The learned Advocat e General subm it s t hat in com pliance of t he order under appeal, possession of t he land has been possession of t he sub- lessees. The learned counsel for t he appellant s cont ends t hat t he appellant s ar e not concerned wit h t he land, which was wit h t he sub- lessees. A request is being m ade for m aint enance of st at us quo. We direct t hat wit hout due process of law, no part of t he land in possession of t he appellant s shall be t aken by t he St at e and, at t he sam e t im e, we m ake it clear t hat wit hout prej udice t o t he r ight s and cont ent ions of t he respect ive 2 part ies in t he appeal, st eps, as have been direct ed t o be t aken in paragraph 29 of t he j udgm ent under appeal, shall be t aken by t he St at e. However, in t he event , t he appeal is not heard and decided before final publicat ion in accordance wit h t he m andat e cont ained in t he ceiling law, t he St at e will seek perm ission of t his Court t o publish t he sam e.”

4. I t is not in disput e t hat j udgm ent rendered in Writ Pet it ion ( M/ S) No. 963 of 2005 by learned Single Judge is under challenge in Special Appeal No. 62 of

2014. Thus, t he adj udicat ion, m ade by learned Single Judge, as referred in paragraph no. 29 of his j udgm ent , would be subj ect t o final out com e of t he appeal.

5. Learned St at e Counsel subm it s t hat t he order passed by Collect or is st rict ly as per t he observat ion m ade by learned Single Judge in paragraph no. 29 of t he j udgm ent , as learned Single Judge has held t hat t he provisions of U.P. I m posit ion of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act , 1960 would be applicable for det erm ining ceiling area, however, t he procedure t o be followed for det erm ining ceiling area will be t hat of t he GETA Act . Learned St at e Counsel has drawn our at t ent ion t o paragraph no. 27 of t he order passed by Collect or, im pugned herein, which support s his cont ent ion t hat t he ceiling lim it , as prescribed in U.P. I m posit ion of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act , 1960, was t aken. He also refers t o paragraph no. 28 of Collect or ’s order for cont ending t hat t he procedure laid down in GETA Act followed. Thus, he subm it s t hat t here is no infirm it y what soever in Collect or ’s Order and t he challenge t hrown by pet it ioners t o t he said order is wit hout any subst ance.

6. Per cont ra, learned senior counsel appearing for t he pet it ioners subm it s t hat t he not ice was issued t o 3 t he pet it ioners under Form s 9 & 10 of t he Rules fram ed under GETA Act , t herefore, t he right of pet it ioners t o indicat e t heir choice as per Ceiling Act was denied t o t hem . He furt her subm it s t hat t he exem pt ions available t o a t enure holder under Sect ion 6 of I m posit ion of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act , 1960 were also not given t o pet it ioners, which has result ed in denial of right available t o t hem in law.

7. This subm ission, m ade behalf pet it ioners, however is disput ed by learned St at e Counsel, who cont ends t hat not ice was issued t o t he pet it ioners under Form - 11, Rule 23 of GETA Rules, before preparing List A & B. He furt her subm it s t hat not ice under GETA Rules was issued t o t hem by Regist ered Post and t his not ice was also past ed on t he m ain door of t he prem ises of pet it ioners; he furt her subm it s t hat pet it ioners t hough filed obj ect ion, but t hat was filed aft er preparat ion of List- A & B.

8. Mr. M.C. Kandpal, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent no. 15 subm it s t hat his client is a bonafide purchaser for considerat ion, however, nam e of his client is not being m ut at ed on account of pendency of cases before t his Court . He furt her subm it s t hat t he land purchased by respondent no. 15 is not affect ed by t he proceedings init iat ed under GETA Act , t herefore, t he revenue aut horit ies be direct ed t o m ut at e nam e of respondent no. 15 in revenue records.

9. Learned St at e Counsel, however, opposed t his subm ission m ade on behalf of Mr. M.C. Kandpal and subm it t ed t hat t he pet it ioners have sold out t he land regarding which bhum idhari right was given t o t hem in 4 Village Anandpur, t o cert ain persons, including respondent no. 15 and t he revenue aut horit ies have t aken int o account pet it ioners’ land sit uat e in Village Anandpur for arriving at t he ceiling area. He, t herefore, subm it s t hat fat e of land purchased by respondent no. 15 will also depend on t he out com e of Special Appeal No. 62 of 2014.

10. Since t he Collect or has proceeded in t he m at t er as per j udgm ent rendered by learned Single Judge in Writ Pet it ion No. 963 ( M/ S) of 2005 and also as per t he direct ion issued by Division Bench of t his Court in Special Appeal No. 62 of 2014, t herefore, t he order passed by Collect or cannot be fault ed..

11. Learned St at e Counsel is right in subm it t ing t hat t he j udgm ent rendered by learned Single Judge Writ Pet it ion No. 963 ( M/ S) of 2005 is under challenge before t his Court , as such fat e of t he order passed by Collect or ( im pugned herein) will depend upon t he out com e of t he Special Appeal.

12. Having regard t o t he fact s and circum st ances of t he case, as discussed above, we do not find any reason t o int erfere in t he m at t er. No direct ion can also be issued in favour of respondent no. 15 at t his st age.

13. The writ pet it ions, t hus, fail and are dism issed. No order as t o cost s. ( Su b h a sh Up a d h y a y , J.) ( M a n o j K u m a r Ti w a r i , J.) 06.08.2025 Navin NAVEEN CHANDRA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3be23325146e76a0642bdf4943fb9046f 487df006da82a131bb4e4403d3c0a15, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=18167EEFB5CA8CFFD421A103819 DA875643AF56D653D095C6ED9A86DAAB21CE5, cn=NAVEEN CHANDRA 5