Chetan Dev Rajput vs State of Uttarakhand and Others

Umesh Chandra Dhyani, J.—By means of present writ petition, the petitioner seeks the following relief:

"To issue a writ or direction to the respondent No. 2 to quash the impugned order dated 9.7.2013 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) passed by the Office of District Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Haridwar, Uttarakhand against the petitioner."

The facts giving rise to the present petition are that the petitioner was allotted a patta in respect of khasra No. 174 admeasuring 80 square yard by the Gram Pradhan/Land Management Committee on 10.11.1998. The petitioner was in possession of the said land even before grant of such patta. The petitioner obtained electricity connection on 21.9.1996. He got a house constructed over such piece of land. The petitioner also obtained payment receipts of water taxes from the office of Executive Engineer, U.P. Jal Nigam. In other words, he was regularly paying water taxes. On 9.7.2013, the District Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Haridwar made a request to the senior officers of the District to remove the petitioner from the alleged land, since the land in question belongs to the cooperative society. The District Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Haridwar want to forcibly evict the petitioner, who is in continuous possession of the said land since 1986. He has constructed a house over the same and is continuously living in the house since then. By means of present writ petition, the petitioner made a prayer to quash the impugned order dated 9.7.2013 passed by the District Assistant Registrar Co-operative Societies, Haridwar. In support of his petition, the petitioner has filed the domicile certificate to show that he is a domicile of Haridwar, Uttarakhand. The said certificate was issued on the basis of report dated 7.5.2010 of the Tehsildar, Haridwar. The petitioner also filed the copies of the voter identity card, patta issued by the Land Management Committee, receipts of electricity and water bills etc.

A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State. In para 3 of the counter-affidavit filed by the State, the following has been stated:

"3. That before giving parawise reply to the writ petition it is submitted that the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 9.7.2013 by means of which action has been taken for eviction of the petitioner from the property situated in Khasra No. 239 Ka of village Laldhang, Tehsil and District Haridwar. It is submitted that the petitioner has illegally occupied the property situated in Khasra No. 239 Ka Sadhan Cooperative Societies Ltd. Laldhang is the owner of the property in reference and the name of Sadhan Co-operative Societies Ltd. Laldhang is duly recorded in the revenue record."

Counter affidavit on behalf of the respondent No. 3 was also filed. Para 4 of the said affidavit is reproduced hereinbelow for convenience:

"4. That the contents of para 7 of the writ petition are replied hereunder the petitioner and his two sons namely Nitin Rajput and Jatin Rajput who was known miscreants of the area, have illegally encroached upon the one godown of the Society meant for storing the agriculture produce and the fertilizers and the Courtyard of the Godown was used by them for their personal use and thus on 19.8.2013 a letter was issued by the respondent No. 2 for getting the godown vacated and thereafter the SDM also sent a letter for getting Godown vacated on 26.9.2013 and thereafter on 16.10.2013 the Godown was taken in possession and as there has been no house of the petitioner which has been taken in possession it is the Godown of the society and the petitioner has not come up with a case that the Godown belongs to him, further more the Godown has been get vacated and thus the Courtyard of the Godown, and no house of the petitioner was ever vacated by anyone and as the Godown is Govt. Property."

A perusal of the patta issued by the Land Management Committee in favour of the petitioner indicates that such a patta was issued on 10.11.1998 in respect of Khasra No. 174 admeasuring 80 square yard. The receipts of electricity and water bills filed on behalf of the petitioner also appear to have been related to Khasra No. 174. But, it appears that under the garb of Khasra No. 174, the petitioner has encroached upon Khasra No. 239 Ka admeasuring 0.139 hectare situated at Laldhang, District Haridwar, as is evident from the letter dated 9.7.2013 of the District Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Society, Haridwar (Annexure-5 of the writ petition).

The State of Uttarakhand has come up with a categorical version that the petitioner has encroached upon the Government land situated at Khasra No. 239 Ka situated in village Laldhang, Tehsil and District Haridwar. The said Khasra belongs to Sadhan Cooperative Society Ltd., Laldhang. The said society, being the owner of the said property, is duly recorded in the revenue record. Perusal of the khatoni (fasli year 1416-1421), which has been annexed at CA-II of the State, shows that the land admeasuring 0.1390 hectare (khasra No. 239 Ka) has been recorded in the name of Sadhan. Co-operative Society, Laldhang.

Thus, it is clear that the petitioner has nothing to do with Khasra No. 239 Ka situated in Laldhang. It was only khasra No. 174 admeasuring 80 square yard, which was allotted to the petitioner by the Land Management Committee on 10.11.1998. Learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3 has submitted that the possession of godown has already been taken by the Sadhan Cooperative Society on 16.10.2013. There was no house of the petitioner. The alleged godown did not belong to the petitioner. Moreover, the same has been vacated. There was no question of vacating any portion of the house of the petitioner.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, the Court has no other option, but to dismiss the writ petition in relation to Khasra No. 239 Ka situated at Laldhang, Haridwar. This Court, however, maintains that the petitioner was allotted Khasra No. 174 admeasuring 80 square yard by the Land Management Committee on 10.11.1998 and he cannot, therefore, be the owner in possession of Khasra No. 239 Ka, which is under the ownership of Sadhan Co-operative Society, Laldhang. The writ petition is dismissed. Since the disputed question of facts are involved in the writ petition and the remedy under law available to the petitioner is to file a civil suit, therefore, liberty is granted to the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy before the Appropriate Court, as may be advised to him in law.