ANAND SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal depicts a very sorry state of affair. A PCS Officer by the name Maharaj Singh, father of the appellants herein, purported to manipulate with the revenue records to show that he is in possession of 232 bighas of Government land. Ultimately, steps were taken to evict Maharaj Singh from the land in question. After possession of the land, in question, was taken, the same was distributed to people belonging to economically weaker strata in the year 1991 in order to provide them with the means of livelihood under the scheme propounded by the Legislature in the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act. By that time, Maharaj Singh had died. Appellants contended that they are in possession of the land in question and, under the scheme propounded in the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, they are entitled to be allotted the said land and, accordingly, question of allotting this land in favour of those people does not arise. They, accordingly, prayed for cancellation of the pattas issued in their favour. The contention that the pattas granted in favour of those people should be rejected, for the reason the appellants are in occupation of the land in question and are entitled to be allotted the land in question, was rejected on 21st November, 2006, which order has reached finality as no challenge thereto has been thrown. Appellants filed a suit against the State asking for an order restraining the State from interfering with their possession. The suit was decreed and appeal preferred against the said decree was also dismissed. Subsequent thereto, a Division Bench of this Court, in Writ Petition No. 1186 (M/B) of 2005, has declared that the order passed on the said suit is a nullity, as the court, which passed the decree, lacked inherent jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Without challenging the order dated 21st November, 2006, referred to above, appellants approached this Court asking for a mandamus directing the State to settle the said 232 bighas of land in their favour. By the order under appeal, the writ petition has been dismissed.

(2.) WHILE it was contended by the appellants that they are in possession, it was contended by the State that the possession was taken from Maharaj Singh, the father of the appellants. This is a factual dispute. The fact, however, remains that grant of pattas in favour of the added respondents, given in 1991, was challenged by the appellants only on the ground that the land is in their possession. The said challenge has been rejected and, accordingly, there is a pronouncement that the appellants are not in possession of the land in question. This decision was rendered on 21st November, 2006. The decision has reached finality and, accordingly, is binding on this Court too. We, accordingly, are unable to hold that the possession is with the appellants and, accordingly, they are entitled to any benefit under the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act. The fact, however, remains, as is depicted, that somehow or the other, appellants are preventing the added respondents from enjoying the usufruct of the grant in their favour and, accordingly, the State is required to take necessary steps so that the grant given by them, on the basis of a legislative mandate, does not lose its significance by reason of the muscle power of the appellants.

(3.) THE appeal is dismissed with the observation as above.