Chandra Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others

Manoj k. Tiwari, J

By means of this writ petition, petitioner has sought following reliefs:-

(i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quashed the order dated 2.3.2017 by which the respondent decline to free hold the shop

of the petitioner under the scheme launched by the Govt.

(ii) Issue a appropriate writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to registered the above address

shop in the name of petitioner by permitting to deposited rest amount of the free scheme of the land.

(iii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents not to recover the fare of the shop in

question from the petitioner and adjusted the deposited amount of fare in the free hold scheme.

According to the petitioner, Nagar Palika Parishad, Pithoragarh constructed a shopping complex at the place called ‘Siltham’ and petitioner

was allotted one shop in the first floor of the said shopping complex.

State of U.P. issued one Government Order dated 23.05.1992 providing for grant of freehold right to persons, who were granted lease over Nazool

land, which belongs to the State but is managed by Municipalities.

It is the case of the petitioner that since the shopping complex has been constructed over Nazool land, therefore, he is entitled to get freehold right

in respect of the land over which his shop has been constructed. Thus, petitioner made application for grant of freehold right and he also deposited a

sum of Rs.5,000/-, as part payment of the price of land in terms of Government Policy. His application has been rejected by District Magistrate,

Pithoragarh vide order dated 02.03.2017, which is impugned in this writ petition.

A perusal of the impugned order indicates that the District Magistrate has dealt with petitioner’s representation in great detail. The District

Magistrate has held that petitioner is not entitled for conversion of leasehold right to freehold right, as he has entered into an agreement with the Nagar

Palika Parishad, Pithoragarh on 12.07.1986 and further that no other tenant of the shopping complex has been granted freehold right.

This Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by District Magistrate, as petitioner was allotted a shop that too in the first

floor of the shopping complex, and beneath petitioner’s shop, there is another shop, which is allotted to someone else.

There is no indefeasible right available to the petitioner for conversion of leasehold right to freehold, as that has to be done in terms of the

Government Policy. The Government Policy does not provide for grant of freehold to tenant in the shop constructed by Municipalities.

Even otherwise also, the person, who has been allotted shop beneath petitioner’s shop, would have a better right than the petitioner for getting

freehold right, as petitioner’s shop is situate on the roof top of ground floor.

In such view of the matter, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner then submits that petitioner has deposited a

sum of Rs. 50,000/- in the Registry pursuant to the order of this Court dated 6.04.2017. If that is so, the said amount shall be released in favour of the

petitioner. Since petitioner has not paid rent in respect of the shop allotted to him since last several years, therefore, he is directed to pay the entire

arrears of rent within six weeks from today, failing which, Nagar Palika Parishad, Pithoragarh shall be at liberty to proceed, in accordance with law,

against the petitioner.