NEW ARBAN AGRO MULTI STATE COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND OTHERS

K.M. JOSEPH, C.J

1. Appellant is the writ petitioner. The writ petition was filed seeking the following relief:Â

“i) issue a writ, order in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to decide the representations / reminders dated 14/11/2017,

27/11/2017, 7/12/2017 & 12/1/2018 of the petitioner for allotment of 200 acres land out of vacant 5272 hec. vacant land situated in Tehsil Vikas Nagar

District Dehradun.â€​

The very same appellant was before this Court in another writ petition, namely, Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2351 of 2017. Therein, the reliefs sought

were as follows:

“(i) Issue a writ, order in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to decide the representations of the petitioner dated 11.01.2016 and

16.01.2016 as directed by this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 12.07.2016 passed in Writ Petition (M/S) No.1904 of 2016 New Arban Agro Multi

State Cooperative Society Ltd. Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others.

(ii)Â Issue a writ, order in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents Nos.3, 4, 5, 6 & 7 to allot 200 acres land to the petitioner society

within Tehsil Vikas Nagar, District Dehradun or any other place in Uttarakhand without any fee.â€​

The said writ petition was dismissed and the appeal against the same was also dismissed. Â

The learned Single Judge, in the impugned judgment, has taken note of the fact that the reliefs are virtually the same and found the writ petition to

be a case of abuse and dismissed the writ petition with cost of  ` 50,000/-. Â

We have heard Mr. Siddhartha Sah, learned counsel for the appellant. In answer to our query as to what is the legal right for the appellant to

seek a direction to consider the representation, which the appellant has filed seeking allotment of land (to an extent of 200 acres public land), he would

seek to rest his case under the provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In fact, we notice that, in the earlier round, an attempt was made

to seek support from Article 43-B. This attempt did not succeed. In this round, a new cause of action is sought to be built-up, no doubt, by the

appellant by pointing out that, in the earlier round, the representation was to give the land free of cost; whereas, in this round, it is pointed out that the

representation seeks allotment of land at minimum Government price. Mr. Siddhartha Sah would also submit that vast tracks of land are lying

unutilized in the State of Uttarakhand and, if the land is allotted, it will lead to the development of the society. Â

We are of the view that there is substantially no change as such, except the case that the land is sought at minimum price. We do not see any

legal right as such with the petitioner to seek allotment of 200 acres of land to it even at the minimum rate, as it has sought. In fact, we have noticed

that the land is located in the plain area and it is, essentially, a policy decision. In fact, it is to be noticed that, in the matter of allotment of public land,

which is a valuable property of the State, it cannot be disposed of on the basis of a decision taken on a representation. The manner of disposal of

such property is a matter, which is settled by law. Â

Therefore, we see no merit at all in the appeal; but, after considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant, we are inclined to

reduce the cost from ` 50,000/- to ` 10,000/-. Accordingly, while we affirm the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge on merits, we only

direct that the cost shall stand reduced from ` 50,000/- to ` 10,000/-. Subject to the same, the appeal will stand dismissed. There will be no order

as to cost in this appeal. Â