Kuldeep Kaur vs State Of Uttarakhand & Anr

Lok Pal Singh, J

Petitioner has invoked the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of The Constitution of India seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari/quashing setting aside the impugned order dated 26.4.2019 passed by respondent no.2 in Misc. case no.51/2 of 2018-19 Harbans Singh vs. Stat and others only to the extent of taking possession of the land in question.

Factual matrix of the case is that husband of the petitioner namely Man Singh Datta was in possession over the land in question wherein he had also constructed a residential house. Man Singh Datta expired in the year 1988 leaving behind his wife (petitioner herein) and three children. After death of petitioner's husband, step brother of Man Singh Datta, namely Harbans Singh, illegally got a lease deed executed in his name, whereagainst the petitioner moved an application before the District Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar. On the application moved by the petitioner, case no.51/4 of 2013-14 was registered. Additional District Magistrate (Nazul) Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar, vide order dated 20.10.2016, cancelled the patta granted in favour of Harbans Singh. Thereafter, petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court being WPMS No.2009 of 2017 which was dismissed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 21.11.2017. While dismissing the writ petition, the Coordinate Bench granted liberty to the petitioner to claim their independent rights settled in any of the regular proceedings permission under law. Pursuant to judgment dated 21.11.2017, son of the petitioner moved an application before the District Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar, for regularization of lease granted in her favour. Meanwhile, on 07.03.2019, Harbans Singh moved restoration application along with an application u/s 5 of Limitation Act to recall the order dated 20.10.2016. Additional District Magistrate, vide order dated 26.4.2019, dismissed the restoration application being not maintainable. While dismissing the application, Addl. District Magistrate observed that in compliance of order dated 20.10.2016 necessary entries have not been made in revenue records and possession of land has not been taken and accordingly directed the Sub Divisional Magistrate to take possession within a month.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner has been admitted to be in settled possession over the land in dispute by the revenue authorities, therefore, he cannot be evicted without due process of law.

On a query raised by the Court as to what was the mode of taking possession by the petitioner, learned counsel would submit that the petitioner is not an allottee rather her husband occupied the land and he was in possession and after his death she is in continuous possession over the land in question. Learned counsel would also inform to the Court that the petitioner is still in possession over the said land.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on filed.

Admittedly, lease granted in favour of Harbans Singh has been cancelled. So far as the possession of the petitioner is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner could not prove before this Court that the petitioner is in legal possession over the land in dispute. It is settled position in law that if an allottee of the government land sublets the property and put anyone in possession, the sub-lessee or the unauthorized occupant would not acquire individual right over the property.

In view of the above, I do not find any illegality or impropriety in the impugned order. Writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.