Pahal Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others

Ramesh Ranganathan, CJ

Heard Mr. M.S. Tyagi, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. S.S. Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State Government and Mr. Rajkumar Singh Verma, learned counsel for the fifth respondent and, with their consent, the Writ Petition is disposed.

The petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of this Court, in larger public interest, to take necessary action to remove the encroachments from the land of Gaon Sabha Sherpur Khelmau, Pargana Manglore, Tehsil Roorkee, District Haridwar; and to rectify the illegalities committed in the consolidation operations.

It is unnecessary for us to refer to the contents of the Writ Petition in detail, for a Division Bench of this Court had, by its order dated 15.06.2018, directed the District Magistrate, Haridwar, who was the District Deputy Director of Consolidation, to remain present in-person in Court, along with the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, to explain what steps had been taken pursuant to the earlier communications dated 02.07.2005, and the report dated 31.03.2012; the Settlement Officer, Consolidation was present in Court along with the records and, on being confronted with the issue raised in the letters dated 02.07.2005 and 31.03.2012, he did not have any satisfactory answer; the officers present in Court were not even aware whether a survey was caused or not; there were various illegalities committed in the consolidation proceedings in allotment of chaks and reserving land for public utility; the records had not been maintained properly resulting in glaring illegalities in the revenue records; and it was expected from the respondents to take all remedial measures when the irregularities were pointed out in the said letters.

After holding that the issue was very sensitive, the Division Bench appointed Mr. D. Senthil Pandian, (IAS), Secretary, Transport to the Government of Uttarakhand to hold a detailed inquiry in the matter, and fix responsibility of the erring officers/officials involved in consolidation in the concerned area. The Division Bench left it open to the farmers to submit their representations to Mr. Pandian for redressel of their grievance. Mr. Pandian was directed to hold an in-depth inquiry, and submit a report to the Court in a sealed cover within three months. The District Magistrate, Hardiwar, being a Deputy Director of Consolidation, and the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, were directed to provide the entire records during the course of inquiry to be held by the one man commission.

An elaborate inquiry appears to have been caused by Mr. D. Senthil Pandian, IAS, who submitted his report to this Court on 11.06.2019. A Division Bench of this Court had, by its order dated 17.09.2019, directed that copies of the report, placed before the Court, be made available both to Mr. M.S. Tyagi, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. S.S. Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State to enable them, if they so chose, to file their objections thereto within three weeks. The matter was directed to be listed today i.e. 14.10.2019 in the daily cause list.

Today both Mr. M.S. Tyagi, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, and, Mr. Rajkumar Singh Verma, learned counsel for the fifth respondent, would submit that they are satisfied with the contents of the report of Mr. D. Senthil Pandian. Mr. S.S. Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State, would also state that, since the inquiry was caused by a senior IAS officer, the Government also has no objection to the contents of the said report.

If that be so, the only question which remains to be considered is regarding implementation of the findings and the recommendations made in the said report. The report of Mr. Pandian makes nine recommendations. Since these recommendations are required to be examined, and a decision taken thereupon by the Government of Uttarakhand, we direct the first respondent to examine the contents of the report and take action on the recommendations, made by Mr. D.Senthil Pandian therein, with utmost expedition.

While Mr. S.S. Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State, would submit that the consolidation proceedings have come to an end, and may now have to be reopened, Mr. M.S. Tyagi, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, would dispute this contention and submit that only recommendations had been made by the Consolidation Officer, and the consolidation proceedings have not been closed as yet.

Mr. S.S. Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State, would request time of 12 months for the Government to take action on the recommendations made by Mr. D.Senthil Pandian in his report.

While we see no justification in granting time of one year, taking into consideration the fact that the land is spread over the entire village, we consider it appropriate to grant the State Government six months' time from today to consider and take action on the recommendations made in the report of Mr. D.Senthil Pandian.

The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. No costs.

Let a certified copy of this order be furnished to the learned counsel for the parties, by 16.10.2019, on payment of the prescribed charges.