SAUKAT Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. A.V. Pundir, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. B.C. Pande, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. H.C. Pathak, learned counsel for the interveners, on intervention application No. 8221/2010 and perused the record. By means of this intervention application, the applicants have prayed that the interim order dated 21-9-2007, passed by this Court be clarified, as it does not apply to the land of the applicants.

(2.) The grievance of the applicants/interveners is that the applicants have purchased the land from Fayaz Ahmad son of Mohd. Umar and he is recorded in the Khautani of revenue village Jwalapur.

(3.) The writ petition has been filed by Saukat and others against the Respondents State of Uttarakhand and its Officers as well as the Union of India, on the ground that the land purchased by the petitioners belong to the share of Mohd. Iqbal and Mohd. Afzal and the same is not an enemy property. The petitioners of present writ petition have assailed the impugned orders, declaring the land of Mohd. Iqbal and Mohd. Afzal, as enemy property, in the writ petition. This fact is not disputed that the share of Mohd. Iqbal and Mohd. Afzal is 1/6 each and the same is also recorded in the Khautani. It appears that there is no dispute of land amongst the co-sharers, but the mutation application has been rejected by Tehsildar because of pendency of the writ petition. Since there is no dispute of the share of Fayaz Ahmad and the interim order has been passed by this court to the effect that parties shall maintain status quo, meaning thereby the interim order dated 21-9-2007, shall operate pertaining to the shares of Mohd. Iqbal and Mohd. Afzal only, whose land has been declared enemy property. The interim order dated 21-9-2007 is clarified accordingly. The intervention application stands disposed of.