Uttarakhand High Court
Khasti Ram vs State Of Uttarakhand And Ors on 25 November, 2022
Author: Sanjaya Kumar Mishra
Bench: Sanjaya Kumar Mishra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition No. 2277 of 2018 (M/S)
Khasti Ram ......Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Ors. ......Respondents
Present:
Mr. Sandeep Tiwari, the learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Pradeep Hairiya, the learned Standing Counsel for the State.
Date of hearing and order: 25.11.2022
Sri Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, J.
By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 08.06.2018 passed by respondent no. 1- Principal Secretary, Revenue, State of Uttarakhand. He also prayed for issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondent no. 1 to grant regularisation benefits to the petitioner under the Government Order Nos. 761/XVIII(II)/12-2(01)/2010 dated 30.05.2012, 1882/XVIII(II)/12-2(01)/2010 dated 19.07.2012, 1767/XVIII(II)/2016-02(01)/2016 dated 26.07.2017, effective upto 18.02.2019 under the G.O. No. 301/XVIII(II)/2018-07(46)/2016 dated 19.02.2018. He further prayed for a direction to respondent no. 1 to uphold the regularisation order dated 19.04.2018.
2. On 30.05.2012, the State of Uttarakhand issued G.O. No. 761/XVIII(II)/12-2(01)/2010 granting proprietary rights/right of transfer in lands to certain classes of Government lessee on payment of prescribed premium within six months from the date of Government Order; on 19.07.2012, another notification 2 was issued whereby the amount required to be paid was reduced and cut-off date was extended; on 28.12.2012, the petitioner and his family members deposited the premium with the State Government; the Tehsildar, Jaiti, District Almora recommended the Assistant Collector, Sub-Division Jaiti, District Almora about consideration of the case of the petitioner but the Assistant Collector disposed of the application. Since, the application of the petitioner was not considered, therefore, he sent advocate notice on 30.05.2017. Again on 17.08.2017, he sent representation through an Advocate. On 06.09.2017, he submitted another application before the District Magistrate, Almora, which was disposed of by the learned District Magistrate on 16.10.2017. The petitioner filed a writ petition bearing WPMS No. 3137 of 2017. On 28.03.2018, the coordinate Bench of this Court directed the Principal Secretary, Revenue, State of Uttarakhand to take a decision on the application as submitted by the petitioner on 17.08.2017. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jaiti, Bhanoli, vide order dated 19.04.2018 disposed of the regularisation application of the petitioner granted regularisation benefit to the petitioner. On 06.06.2018, the Principal Secretary, Revenue, State of Uttarakhand issued notice to the petitioner which was served upon him on 07.06.2018, to appear at Dehradun on 08.06.2018 to resolve the matter. The Principal Secretary, Revenue, State of Uttarakhand disposed the application of the petitioner 3 on 17.08.2017 denying the regularisation benefits to the petitioner under the aforesaid orders.
3. In course of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner would draw attention of the Court to Sub section (4) of Section 2 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as UPZA&LR Act for brevity) which reads as follows:-
"Section 2. Modification of the Act, in its application to certain areas.
4. The land of Non-Zamindari Abolition obtained by de- notification of forest land for the purposes of non-forestry, un- used barren and extended land from natural reasons and the land obtained from any other reasons, in which this Act is not extended then the State Government may extended for the commencement to the vest provisions in this Act by notificiaton and where it is necessary, the relevant provisions of this Act shall be applicable suo motu."
He also relies upon Section 133-A of the UPZA&LR which provides that every person to whom land has been let out by the State Government shall be called a Government lessee in respect of such land, and shall, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Act, be entitled to hold the same in accordance with the terms and conditions of the lease relating thereto, and would submit that even if the grant was given to the petitioner initially under the Government Grants Act, 1895, the petitioner is entitled to be treated as landholder/Bhumidhari under the provisions of Section 133-A of the UPZA&LR Act, and, therefore, he 4 prayed that appropriate writ may be issued directing the respondent to give him bhumidhari transferable right.
4. The learned Standing Counsel for the State Mr. Pradeep Hairiya, draw attention of the Court to paragraph, 5, 7, 8 and 9 of the short counter affidavit wherein the State of Uttarakhand has taken a stand in the instant matter pertaining to Government Grants Act, 1895, show the important and small question for consideration of the petitioner whether petitioner is entitled to relief in the light of G.O. dated 30.03.2012 and 19.07.2012 and whether the regularisation application issued in terms of the aforesaid G.O. He would further submit that since the subject matter of this petition pertains to law which is subject matter of Government Grants Act, there is no application of UPZA&LR Act. It is also brought to our notice that the order dated 19.04.2018 of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Lamgarh, in the opinion of the Principal Secretary, Revenue, State of Uttarakhand was not in the light of the aforesaid submissions, therefore, respondent no. 1 vide order dated 08.06.2018 came to conclusion, which is challenged in this case, and rejected the representation of the writ petitioner.
5. The learned counsel for the State would further bring into notice that the similar question arose in the reported case of Raghuvar Dayal (dead) vs. State of Uttarakhand & Ors.,1995 SCC SUPL (3) 20 wherein the 5 Supreme Court has taken into consideration various provisions including the Government Grants Act, 1895 and has held as follows:-
"7. Even otherwise, we find that the Government Grants Act itself prescribed the applicability of the Act to the lands covered by the grant. The proviso to sub-section (3) of s.3 reads thus:
"Provided that nothing in this section shall prevent, or deemed ever to have prevented the effect of any enactment relating to the acquisition of property, land reforms or the imposition of ceiling on agricultural lands i.e. U.P. Act 13 of 1960."
8. That was inserted with retrospective effect. Thus, it could be seen even if the present is construed as a grant of the agricultural lands under the Government Grants Act, by operation of the proviso to sub-s. (3) of s.3 of the Act, the Act is clearly applied for the purpose of computation of the ceiling area of the agricultural lands. It would appear that the Government Grants Act intended that even the grantee under that Act shall not be in excess of the ceiling area prescribed under the Act. Thereby, the lessee of the Government land, though had a grant under the Government Grants Act, cannot claim to have been outside the purview of the Act.
13. It is next contended that under s.133-A of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950, the lease covered under the Act was treated to be Government lease and the appellants were entitled to hold the same in accordance with the terms and conditions of the lease relating thereto. It is contended that this Act was extended to Nainital after 1.7.1969 and, therefore, the notice issued is also illegal. We find no force in the contention. In this case, since the lease itself was granted by the Government under the Government Grants Act, s.133-A has no application."
6. Thus, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner, who has been granted lease under the 6 Government Grants Act, 1895 is not entitled to benefit of the UPZA&LR Act.
7. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed being devoid of merits.
8. No order as to costs.
(Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, J.) (Grant certified copy as per rules) PV 7