Uttarakhand High Court
Uttam Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 1 August, 2023
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2103 of 2023
Uttam Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others ...Respondent
Present:-
Mr. Pradeep Kumar Chauhan, Advocate for the
petitioner.
Mr. H.M. Raturi, Additional C.S.C. for the State.
Mr. Gaurav Singh, Advocate for the respondent nos. 4
and 5.
JUDGMENT
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) The petitioner is challenging the inaction of the respondent no.2.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent no. 2, the Director Rehabilitation, Tehri Dam Rehabilitation Division, Tehri Garhwal had permitted the respondent no.5, Gram Sabha Tehri Bandrakoti, Pathri Visthapit Basti, Tehri Bandrakoti, Pathri Forest Range, Haridwar ("Gram Sabha Bandrakoti") to construct Panchayat Ghar within the territorial limits of the respondent no.4 Gram Sabha Ghonti, Pathri Visthapit Basti, Ghonti, Pathri Forest Range, Haridwar ("the Gram Sabha Ghonti") at a place which has otherwise been earmarked for construction of hospital for the Gram Sabha Ghonti.
2
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondent no.5 Gram Sabha Bandrakoti was separated from the respondent no.4 Gram Sabha Ghonti in the year 2020. The land of both the villages has been separately earmarked. A place which has been earmarked for a hospital and a veterinary hospital, within the limit of Gram Sabha Ghonti, is now being is now being utilized by the Gram Sabha Bandrakoti for the construction of their Panchayat Ghar, which they cannot legally do. He would submit that the land of Gram Sabha has been vested under Section 117 of the UP Zamindari and Land Reforms Act, 1950.
5. Learned counsel for the State would submit that the construction is not being raised within the territorial limit of Gram Sabha Ghonti. He would submit that the construction is not proposed on any land which has been earmarked for hospital, instead it is on the vacant land. He would submit that earlier also the petitioner had complained about this fact which has been inquired by the District Magistrate, Haridwar and it was found that the allegations of the petitioner are not true. 3
6. Learned State counsel would also submit that the authorities concerned have transferred the land at which the construction is proposed to the Gram Sabha Bandrakoti.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent no.5, Gram Sabha Bandrakot would submit that the petitioner has no case at all. He is a candidate, who lost in the election of Gram Pradhan. The land has been transferred to Gram Sabha Bandrakoti. Earlier also, the petitioner had made various complaints. After inquiry, it was found on those complaints that the proposed construction was on a vacant land and it is the land which belongs to the Gram Sabha Bandrakoti. He has placed for the perusal of the Court a report 11.07.2023 and another communication dated 01.07.2023 of some authority. The Revenue Inspector in his report has stated that the construction of Panchayat Ghar is on the vacant land. It is not earmarked for construction of health centres. In another communication dated 01.07.2023 of Up Rajaswadhikari, Punarwas Khand, Rishikesh reveals that the place where Panchayat Ghar is under construction belongs to Gram Sabha Bandrakoti. Both these communications are taken on record.
4
8. On behalf of respondent no.5, Gram Sabha Bandrakoti, it is also stated that, in fact, the map which has been enclosed as Annexure1 was prepared in the year 2015 and thereafter, in the year 2020, the respondent no.5, Gram Sabha Bandrakoti has been separated and that portion of land, on which Panchayat Ghar is proposed has fallen in the share of Gram Sabha Bandrakoti.
9. Learned counsel for the respondent no.4, Gram Sabha Ghonti would submit that the construction is being done in the land of Gram Sabha Bandrakoti, which is not earmarked for Gram Sabha Ghonti for any purpose, whatsoever.
10. The petitioner has raised factual aspects. The question is as to in which Gram Sabha, the land at which Panchayat Ghar is under construction falls. It is admitted to the petitioner that he lost election of Gram Pradhan in Gram Sabha, Ghonti. The statement that has been given by learned State counsel and learned counsel for the respondent no.5 makes it abundantly clear that earlier also complaints were made with regard to the construction of Panchayat Ghar.
11. The communication which has been rendered by learned counsel for the respondent no.5, Gram Sabha Bandrakoti and those which have been taken on record 5 categorically reveals that, in fact, the matter has been inquired by the Revenue Officer and it was found that the construction is not being raised on any land that belongs to Gram Sabha, Ghonti. In fact, it is a vacant land which was within the area of Gram Sabha, Bandrakoti.
12. The petitioner has not raised even a debatable issue. He is not Village Pradhan of the Gram Sabha Ghonti. He is a defeated candidate in the election. The State authorities, the Pradhan of Gram Sabha Ghonti admits that the Panchayat Ghar is proposed at a place, which is within the limits of Gram Sabha Bandrakoti. In view of it, this Court does not intend to examine this issue in the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed at the stage of admission itself.
13. The writ petition is dismissed in limine.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 01.08.2023 Jitendra