Lekhraj & Others vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others

Sharad Sharma, J

Admittedly according to the petitioners the land in question is recorded in Shreni 9 in 1375 fasli. As per the pleadings raised in paragraph 8 of the Writ Petition, it is an admitted case of the petitioners that they themselves have filed a Suit for declaration of their rights by invoking Section 229-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950, and the same is pending consideration before the Assistant Collector/Sub Divisional Officer, Doiwala, District Dehradun. The said Suit is pending and during its pendency the petitioners have filed the present Writ Petition for the following reliefs:

(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding/ directing the respondents not to dispossess the petitioners from the land mentioned in the Khatauni (contained Annexure no. 2 to this writ petition) without the process of law.

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding/directing the respondent nos. 1 & 2 to consider the case of the petitioner to free hold of the land in dispute in their favour, in view of the government notification dated 27.01.2014 (contained as Annexure no. 6 to this writ petition) and the respondent nos. 1 & 2 may further be directed to grant the free hold rights to the petitioners over the land in dispute after taking usual charges from the petitioners.

(iii) Issue any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case be passed in favour of the petitioners.

(iv) Cost of the petition be awarded in favour of the petitioners."

According to the Khatoni entries of 1394 fasli the land is shown to be recorded in Shreni 9 against which the predecessor from whom the petitioners claim his right is shown to be recorded as an occupant. According to the paragraph A 124 of Land Record Manual, which is related to the provisions as applicable on the land lying under U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950, is a land in Shreni 9, which defines these category of occupiers of land without the consent of the person entered in column 4 of the Khasra. The petitioners themselves have come up with the case that the land stands recorded in the name of Hari Krishan Lal, Bal Krishan Lal, Gopal Krishan Lal, Brij Krishan lal & Shri Shyam Krishan Lal all sons of Late Shri Ram Krishan Lal. Admittedly, the land under their claimed possession was put to ceiling proceedings, which is altogether distinctively been proceeded with. The petitioners claim to be in possession and to be recorded in the revenue records as per the proceedings under Section 54(6) of the Land Revenue Act, which as per law they are summary proceedings, which do not confer any right or title over the property. The main grievance, which has reflected during course of argument, is that, as a matter of fact, the petitioners were agitating their grievance against the lease deed dated 10.03.2010 executed by the State of Uttarakhand in favour of respondent no. 3 to the Writ Petition. Even if there was any grievance against the lease deed executed in relation to a land declared as surplus there is altogether a different and distinct proceeding contemplated under law, atleast a writ of mandamus seeking injunction from inference in possession would not be the remedy. Apparently, looking to the factual backdrop as culled out in the Writ Petition, it requires a scrutiny of number of factual and legal aspects, which are governed by the independent civil and revenue laws, entailing appraisal of fact and law, which atleast this Court is of the view that it cannot be subject matter in a writ jurisdiction, as if the High Court under Article 226 is sitting in original civil jurisdiction.

Looking to the nature of reliefs as sought for and, in particular, in relation to an immovable property, which is a subject matter of a regular Suit for declaration under Section 229-B of U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act, a writ of mandamus for nature of relief claimed is not maintainable seeking a direction of restraint from being dispossessed from the land in question.

In case if the petitioners has any grievance all recourse available to them is before the Assistant Collector, where the Suit preferred by petitioners under Section 229-B is pending consideration.

In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the Writ Petition holding the same to be not maintainable.

The same is accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to cost.