Javed Akhtar vs Uttarakhand State & Others

Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, J

1) In this case, the petitioner has prayed to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to comply the order dated 23.10.2013, passed by this

Court, in Writ Petition (PIL) No. 122 of 2018, within prescribed time period, and also to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to comply

the order dated 23.10.2013, passed by this Court, in the aforementioned Writ Petition (PIL).

2) On 23.10.2018, a Divisional Bench of this Court, had passed the following order, in Writ Petition (PIL) No. 122 of 2018. The same reads as under:

“None is present for the petitioner.

Mr. Paresh Tripathi, C.S.C. for the State.

The case set out in the writ petition is that some persons have encroached upon the Takiya / Graveyard land and the revenue entries have

also been changed.

According, the writ petition is disposed of. The District Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar is directed to hold an inquiry, under what

circumstances, the revenue entries were changed and to restore them after hearing the parties.

Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.â€​

3) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the matter relates to a land recorded as Milak Musta Takiyawali / Takiya / Takiyawala / in the

Jamabandi (revenue records) of 1283 Fasli year, accordingly 1875-76, situated in Village Maheshpura, Pargana Kashipur, District Udham Singh

Nagar. According to him, the said land of public utility, which was used for the burial of dead bodies by the Muslim community since last century and

had been recorded as Graveyeard / Takiya in the revenue record has been encroached by several unauthorized occupants, who have built their shops

and buildings on the said land. According to the petitioner, the status of the land in question has been changed illegally in revenue records during

consolidation process by the respondents and the same has been recorded on the names of several private persons, who have grabbed the said land

and built their buildings and shops on it. Learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that the respondent authorities have not taken appropriate steps

in accordance with law since 2018, and have deliberately avoided complying the order dated 23.10.2018, passed by this Court, in Writ Petition (PIL)

No. 122 of 2018, titled as Javed Akhter Vs State of Uttarakhand and others.

4) On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that the order dated 23.10.2018, passed by the Division Bench of this Court, in the Writ

Petition (PIL) aforementioned, has not been complied with as yet.

5) In such view of the matter, we dispose of the present Writ Petition (PIL) by directing the respondent No. 2, i.e., District Magistrate, Udham Singh

Nagar, to comply the direction passed by this Court in the nature of mandamus on 23.10.2018, in Writ Petition (PIL) aforementioned, failing which a

civil contempt will lie.

6) The Writ Petition (PIL) stands disposed of, accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.