BALDEV SINGH Vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER
LAWS(UTN)-2013-6-89
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Decided on June 17,2013

BALDEV SINGH Appellant
VERSUS
ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER Respondents

JUDGEMENT

B.S.VERMA, J. - (1.) BY means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 07.09.1999 passed by Additional Commissioner (Administration), Garhwal Mandal.
(2.) BRIEF facts, giving rise to this petition, are that petitioner is having a house over the Plot No. 137 Kha. The said plot is a Bhumidhari plot of the petitioner. There is a land adjoining to the said plot, which belongs to the Gram Sabha of Village Sarangdharwala, Pargana Parvadoon, District Dehradun. In the year 1997, at the time of settlement, the petitioner came to know that some part of the house has been constructed by him on the Gram Sabha land due to some mistake. Immediately on 25.09.1997, he made an application to the Assistant Collector/S.D.O. 1st Class, Rishikesh requesting him to regularize the land on which he has constructed his house, belonging to the Gram Sabha, in his favour. It was also requested by the petitioner in the same application that he is ready to give his Bhumadari land in lieu of Gram Sabha land. The Assistant Collector/S.D.O. directed the Naib Tehsildar of the area to make an enquiry into the matter. Thereafter Naib Tehsildar through Patwari and Land Records Inspector got an enquiry made and vide order dated 16.05.1998 a report was submitted to the Assistant Collector/S.D.O., Rishikesh recommending the case of the petitioner for regularization of the land in his favour. Thereafter, the Assistant Collector/S.D.O. vide order dated 06.02.1998 (annexure No. 2 to the petition) passed an order for regularization of the land in favour of the petitioner. After the regularization order was passed, respondent No. 2 - real brother of the petitioner moved an application on 20.01.1998 before the Additional Collector (Administration), Dehradun with the allegations that the petitioner has unauthorizedly constructed his house over 1.5 Dasimal land of Khasra No. 20 area 0.03 acre (new No. 137) of Gram Sabha land in Village Sarangdharwala, Pargana Parvadoon, District Dehradun. Therefore, the petitioner is liable to be ejected from the said land. The learned Additional Collector (Administration), after hearing respondent No. 2 as well as the petitioner, rejected the application vide order dated 02.05.1998. Aggrieved by the order of Additional Collector, respondent No. 2 preferred a revision No. 11 of 1997 -98, Veer Singh Vs Baldev Singh before the learned Additional Commissioner, Garhwal Mandal, which was allowed vide order dated 07.09.1999 and set aside the orders dated 06.02.1998 and 02.05.1998 passed by the Assistant Collector. Hence, this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner.
(3.) IN the present case counter affidavit has been filed by respondent No. 2 and case was contested by the respondent. It has been stated in the counter affidavit that on the date of regularization of the land in dispute in favour of the petitioner, he was having land more than 03.26 hectare and the petitioner was not an eligible person for the regularization of the disputed land. As per the averment of the petitioner, he had already damaged some portion of house, which was constructed on the Gram Sabha land. Therefore, the regularization order as well as the order passed by the Assistant Collector has rightly been set aside by the Additional Collector (Administration). Respondent No. 2 has also filed supplementary counter affidavit annexing therewith the Khatonies of the petitioner, which shows that he was having more than 3.26 hectare of land on the date of allotment of disputed land. Therefore, the regularization of the land in question has been made de -hors the provision of law. The learned Additional Collector (Administration) has rightly set aside the earlier orders. I am in full agreement with the judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Collector (Administration) in revision. The petition lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that liberty be given to the petitioner to move an application for exchange of his land from the land of Gram Sabha and he is ready to give his adjoining land from the disputed property to the Gram Sabha in exchange. This averment has already been made in the writ petition.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.