Writ Petition No. 3629 of 2001 · Uttarakhand High Court · 2012

the father of the petitioners Sri Krishnananda moved an application on 7.2.1981 before the Sub Divisional Officer, Pithoragarh, for regularising 16 Nalis of the land in dispute, which he had already occupied long back, and after spending huge amount and labour he had carved out several plain plot over the land in dispute. The father of the petitioners had also closed 3 the land in dispute by raising boundary wall. At the time of moving the application, petitioners(cid:146) father had been raising grass over there for fodder for the domestic animals. On the said application, the concerned Patwari made a spot inspection and submitted the report on 10.4.1981. In the said report, the Patwari stated that the applicant owns about 37 Nalis land as per revenue record and the land in dispute is the adjoining land to his existing land. The Patwari also confirmed and verified the fact that the petitioners were in the possession over the land in dispute prior to 10th July, 1975. He further indicated in the report that the applicant had carved out the plots on the land in dispute by raising the side wall around the land. On the basis of report of the Patwari, the Tehsildar, Pithoragarh also visited the spot and after making necessary enquiry and also after hearing the other villages, as per the direction provided in the Government Orders dated 7.12.1976 and 6.2.1981 submitted his report to the Sub Divisional Officer, Pithoragarh on 14.4.1981. By the said report, the Tehsildar also confirmed and verified the possession of the applicant, i.e., father of the petitioners, over the land in dispute since July 1975 and recommended that the land in dispute may be regularised in the name of the applicant. Against the application for regularisation moved by the petitioners(cid:146) father, one Jamuna Dutt filed objections. By an order dated

5.4.1982, the Sub Divisional Officer rejected the prayer of the applicant to regularise the said land in his favour and referred the matter to the Collector, Pithoragarh. By an order of 28.1.1983, the Deputy Commissioner, Pithoragarh, confirmed the order of the Sub Divisional Officer. Review application was moved by the father of the petitioners against the order dated 4

28.1.1983 which was also rejected by order of

29.7.1983. Against the order dated 29.7.1983, revision was preferred before the Commissioner, who vide order dated 31.3.1990 allowed the revision and set aside the orders dated 28.1.1983 and 29.7.1983 and remanded the case back to the Collector to hear the matter and pass the order in the light of the report of Tehsildar whether the Collector remitted the matter to Assistant Collector. Applicant Krishnananda and the objector Jamuna Dutt were died during the pendency of the said appeal before Upper Commissioner and their legal representative were duly substituted by the court. The Sub Divisional Officer vide order dated 15.1.1992 did favour to the petitioners and did not recommend the same for regularisation on the ground that the grass was grown over the land in dispute and therefore it could not be said that the land was being used for agricultural purpose. The said order dated

15.1.1992 was assailed before the Collector, who also rejected the claim of the applicant by the impugned order dated 26.2.1994. Being aggrieved by the impugned orders, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition. Inspite of time being granted, no counter affidavit has been filed. I have the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on file. This fact is not disputed that the father of the petitioners have filed the application for regularisation of the land on the basis of the Government Orders dated 7.12.1976 and 16.2.1981. As per the Government Order dated 7.12.1976, the precondition of the application to be filed was that the applicant must have land less than 62.5 Nali including the land to be regularised. This fact has not 5 been disputed by the Authority that the applicant, i.e., the father of the petitioners, was having more than

62.5 Nali Land. The second precondition as per the Government Order dated 16.2.1981 was that the applicant must be in possession prior to 1975. In this regard, the report of the Patwari as well as of the Tehsildar goes to show that the father of the petitioners was in possession over the land in dispute prior to 1975. Earlier when the application for regularisation was filed and the revision was preferred before the Commissioner, the learned Commissioner had directed the Sub Divisional Officer to consider the aspect of the matter that growing of grass is also for an agricultural purpose but this aspect has not been considered by the Sub Divisional Officer and without any rhyme and reason has held that growing of grass on the land is not for an agricultural purpose, which is totally a perverse finding, when the applicant had pleaded in his application that the grass was being grown by him for fodder of the domestic animals. In the light of the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. Impugned orders are quashed. A writ of mandamus is issued to the Collector Pithoragarh to consider and allow the application dated 7.2.1981 moved by the father of the petitioners within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of the order and entry be made in the revenue record accordingly. The notice issued under the Public Premises Act be also discharged. Rajni (B.S. Verma, J.) 18.10.2012