Shiv Kumar vs Sri Pankaj Pandey and others

Hon''ble B.S. Verma, J.—By means of this writ petition, the Petitioner has sought a writ, order or direction to set aside the order dated 18.8.2003 passed by Assistant Collector, 1st Class, Bhawar Haldwani, District Nainital (Annexure No. 3 to the writ petition) and the order dated 4.8.2004 passed by Commissioner, Kumaon Division, Nainital (Annexure No. 4 to the writ petition) whereby the land of the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 was declared non-agricultural u/s 143 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act.

According to the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the Petitioner claims himself to be the owner and bhumidhar of the land and also claiming the possession of the land. It is not disputed that the Petitioner is not a recorded tenure holder. The Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are recorded tenure holders.

The application u/s 143 of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act was moved before the Assistant Collector, 1st Class, Bhawar Haldwani, District Nainital by the Respondent which was registered as Revenue Suit No. 22/175 of 2003 (Pankaj Pandey and Anr. v. State of Uttaranchal). The Assistant Collector obtained the report from Tehsildar, Haldwani wherein the Tehsildar, Haldwani reported to the Assistant Collector that the Plot No. 112 minjubla area 0.057 hectare is not being used for the agricultural purpose.

After hearing to the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, on the basis of the report of Tehsildar, the Plot No. 112 minjubla area 0.057 hectare was declared non-agricultural land by the Assistant Collector on 18.8.2003.

Aggrieved by the order of the Assistant Collector, the Petitioner preferred revision before the Commissioner, Kumaon Division, Nainital. On 4.8.2004 the learned Commissioner, Kumaon Division, Nainital, after hearing the Petitioner as well as the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, dismissed the revision on the ground that the Petitioner is not a recorded tenure holder.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has further contended that the Petitioner had filed a suit (Suit, No. 22/41 (2000-2001) Shiv Kumar v. State of LLP. and Ors. u/s 229 B of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act in the court of Assistant Collector/Sub Divisional Officer, Bhawar Haldwani, District Nainital. The Assistant Collector/Sub Divisional Officer dismissed the suit on 18.7.2002 on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.

Further aggrieved by the order dated 18.7.2002, the Petitioner preferred an appeal (Appeal No. 110/90 of 2001-02) before the Commissioner, Kumaon Division, Nainital and the appeal too was disposed of with the direction to remit the suit for fresh decision to initiate the proceeding u/s 143(1) of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act.

I have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the averments made in the writ petition, counter affidavit and supplementary affidavit.

Since the Assistant Collector has declared the Plot No. 112 minjubla area 0.057 hectare as non-agricultural, the Petitioner may press his grievance for the land which is being used as agricultural purpose before the Assistant Collector as the suit has been remanded back by the learned Commissioner.

The findings of the Assistant Collector, 1st Class, Bhawar Haldwani and the Commissioner, Kumaon Division, Nainital that since the Petitioner is not a recorded tenure holder and the recorded tenure holder are Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and the declaration was made after obtaining the report of the Tehsildar, Haldwani under Rule 135 of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, are not perverse findings. The title suit, so far as the agricultural land is concerned, is to be decided by the Assistant Collector and if the Petitioner claims (sic) over the and in dispute for which the declaration was made u/s 143 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, he may file a civil suit before the competent court. The order under challenge does not warrant any interference.

The writ petition is devoid of merit and is dismissed in limine.

All the pending applications stand disposed of accordingly.