Kunwar Pal Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others

Ramesh Ranganathan, CJ

Heard Mr. Shakti Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B.S. Parihar, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, and with their

consent, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission.

The petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to remove all illegal constructions

from the Government ponds in Jaspur Tehsil, Udham Singh Nagar District; for a mandamus directing the respondents to initiate an inquiry to ascertain

how Government ponds have been utilized for the construction of residential units; and to take necessary action against the culprits.

In the affidavit, filed in support of the Writ Petition, the petitioner states that the pond in Khasra no. 44 of Malpuri village was encroached upon by

raising a boundary wall; and Khata no. 75, 76 and 79 of Amritpur village (1 Km. from Jaspur Tehsil) is shown, as a pond, in the certified map, despite

which construction is being carried out by certain individuals who have encroached upon public property.

With respect to the land in khasra no. 44 of Malpuri village where the boundary wall was constructed over land forming part of the pond, the

respondents, in their counter affidavit, have stated that Smt. Sunita Gupta had purchased an extent of 0.138 Hectares in khasra no. 45, and had

constructed a boundary wall on her land encroaching upon a part of the pond in khasra no. 44/1; and the encroachment has been demolished by using

JCB machine on 28.09.2019, and the entire extent of 0.044 Hectares, in khasra no. 44/1 of Malpuri, is now free of encroachments.

While fairly stating that encroachment on the pond, in khasra no. 44/1, has been removed, Mr. Shakti Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner,

would submit that, instead of removing the debris from the site, the respondents had, while demolishing the illegal construction, dumped the debris in

the pond itself. Suffice it, in such circumstances, to direct the respondents to remove the debris, dumped by them in the pond while demolishing the

boundary wall, with utmost expedition, and, in any event, within two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.

In so far as the petitioner’s claim of encroachment in Amritpur village is concerned, the respondents, in their counter affidavit, have stated that

the land in khata nos. 75, 76 and 79, situated in Amritpur village, belongs to private persons, and has been recorded in their names; and the khatauni

records the names of private individuals as Class 1-K Bhumidhar having transferable rights.

While Mr. Shakti Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, would rely on a certified map to contend that the land, which forms part of the pond, has

been erroneously recorded in the revenue records as private land, Mr. B.S. Parihar, learned Standing Counsel, would draw our attention to the

khatauni, for the years 2004-09, which records that the land, in khata no. 75/1, 76/1 and 79/1, belongs to private parties who have Bhumidhari

transferable rights over the said land.

We see no justification in undertaking an enquiry as to whether the entries, recorded in the khatauni for the years 2004-09, are right or wrong, more

so in the absence of those whose names were recorded therein, and who have not been arrayed as respondents in the writ petition.

Suffice it, therefore, to observe that it will be open to the petitioner, if he so chooses, to question the entries recorded in the khatauni, which he

claims to be a pond, in appropriate legal proceedings.

The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.

No costs.