Uttarakhand High Court
WPMS/1949/2023 on 5 January, 2026
Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
2026:UHC:149
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
and Registrar's
order with
Signatures
WPMS/1949/2023
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J
1. Mr. Piyush Garg, learned counsel for
the petitioner.
2. Mr. Rajeev Singh Bisht, learned
Additional C.S.C. for the State of
Uttarakhand.
3. Mr. S.N. Babulkar, learned Senior
Counsel appearing for UJVN.
4. Mr. Vinay Kumar, learned counsel for
respondent nos. 3 & 5.
5. Mr. V.K. Kohli, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Dharmendra Barthwal, learned counsel for the respondent-UPCL.
6. Mr. Avtar Singh Rawat, learned counsel for the applicant in the Intervention Application (IA No. 10 of 2025).
7. Petitioner is a resident of Village Rudrapur, Tehsil Ukhimath, District Rudraprayag. By means of this writ petition, she has sought the following relief:-
(i) Issue a writ, order or direction under Art. 226 of The Constitution of India directing the respondents not to encroach or construct on the land of Gochar (Annexure no. 1) in Village Rudrapur, Tehsil - Ukhimath, District Rudraprayag.
8. According to petitioner, public utility land recorded as Gochar (pasture) in Village Rudrapur, Tehsil Ukhimath, District Rudraprayag has been leased out by Forest Department to Power Transmission Corporation of Uttarakhand Ltd. (in short 'PTCUL') for establishing 400 K.V. Sub- Station, which is contrary to the provisions of U.P. Zamidari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, which does not permit such allotment of public utility land for other purposes.
2026:UHC:149
9. Mr. Puyush Garg, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner during the course of arguments, however, concedes that the land in question, which has been allotted for establishing 400 K.V. Sub- Station is Non-Zamidari Land, therefore, provisions of UPZA&LR would not be attracted. He, however, submits that as per general principles, public utility land cannot be diverted for any other purpose.
10. Learned counsel for the respondents, however, refer to order dated 29.12.2021 passed by this Court in WPMS No. 2849 of 2021, whereby earlier writ petition filed by petitioner was disposed of with liberty to her to make representation to District Magistrate and the District Magistrate was directed to take decision on representation, within eight weeks thereafter.
11. It is pointed out that pursuant to that order, petitioner filed a representation and the District Magistrate rejected the same, vide order dated 21.02.2022, Thus, it is contended that once District Magistrate has taken a decision against the petitioner, then without challenging that order, petitioner cannot claim any relief in the matter.
12. This Court finds substance in the said submission. Since, District Magistrate has given certain reasons for rejecting the representation of petitioner, therefore, without challenging the reasons/grounds indicated by District Magistrate for taking a decision against the petitioner, petitioner cannot get any relief.
13. In his order dated 21.02.2022, District Magistrate has observed that total area of Revenue Village Rudrapur is 58.434 Hectare, out of which 7.051 Hectare constitutes pasture land and out of that pasture land, only 2.60 Hectare has been leased out to PTCUL. It is further observed that out of 2.60 Hectare, leased out to PTCUL for 2026:UHC:149 setting up 400 K.V. Sub-Station, PTCUL is ready to handover 0.8 Hectare to the Villagers for grazing of cattle. The District Magistrate further directed the Executive Engineer, PTCUL to plant such vegetation, including trees which may provide fodder for the cattle of Village Rudrapur. District Magistrate also directed PTCUL in its order that Medical, Health & Education Facilities be also provided to the Villagers from its C.S.R. Fund.
14. Mr. S.N. Babulkar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for UJVN refers to pleading made in para 7 of the writ petition for contending that petitioner is not dependant on agriculture or animal husbandry, but she is carrying on commercial activities over the land in question, by installing tents for housing Tourist. It is further contended that since the order passed by District Magistrate has attained finality, no relief can be granted to the petitioner.
15. This Court finds substance in the submission made by learned counsel for the respondents. Since District Magistrate has taken a decision against the petitioner for certain reasons indicated in his order, therefore, without challenging that decision no relief can be granted to the petitioner.
16. Mr. Piyush Garg, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to file fresh, challenging the order dated 21.02.2022 passed by District Magistrate, Rudraprayag.
17. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn, with the aforesaid liberty.
(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J) 05.01.2026 Aswal NITI RAJ Digitally signed by NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF SINGH UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=eacc6757ee7881e933ff8934f07477005aa85f9802a3a08b08 d1369512ea30f3, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=44EB54CBF00B7698CB6F10C2CE3D26F5C22DACF4F 4610C1FE58A58531726FBB0, cn=NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL ASWAL Date: 2026.01.05 04:55:24 -08'00' 2026:UHC:149