KAUSHAL TIKKU Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT petition is filed assailing the order dated 25.03.2013 passed by the Collector, Nainital and Orders dated 30.04.2014 and 05.11.2014 passed by the Commissioner Kumaon Division, Nainital.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the present case, inter alia, are that the petitioner, who is a resident of Delhi wanted to purchase the agricultural land in Village Bohra Gaon, Patti East Chahkhata, Tehsil and District Nainital, therefore, he applied before the Collector, Nainital for grant of permission to purchase the land under Section 154 (4) (3) (b) of the UPZA and LR Act, 1950 (as amended and applicable in the State of Uttarakhand); vide order dated 16.12.2007, Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition, learned Collector, Nainital was pleased to grant permission to the petitioner to purchase land of Khata No. 58, Khet No. 575, measuring 10 Naali, 1 Mutthi for agriculture/horticulture purpose. Pursuant to the permission dated 16.12.2007, the petitioner has purchased land measuring 7 Naali, 12 Mutthi vide sale deed dated 07.01.2008; after purchasing the land, mutation was carried out in the revenue record in favour of the petitioner; on 18.06.2010, show cause notice was issued to the petitioner stating that the petitioner is not using the land for agriculture or horticulture purpose, rather he is raising construction thereon, for Hotel, therefore, as to why land should not be directed to be vested in the State Government by exercising powers under Section 167 of UPZA and LR Act; petitioner furnished his explanation, whereupon spot inspection was carried out by the Tehsildar; learned Tehsildar submitted his inspection report dated 25.09.2010, to the effect that no construction was being raised on the spot over the land purchased by the petitioner. He, however, stated in his report dated 25.09.2010 that on the entire land only two trees of Mango, two trees of pear, one tree of Leechi, 12 trees of Malta and two trees of lemon are standing on the spot and on the remaining part of land small trees of green chilly are standing; vide order dated 25.03.2013, learned Collector, Nainital was pleased to pass impugned order vesting the land in the State Government, under Section 167 of the Act, stating therein that the entire land is not being used for agriculture/horticulture purpose and most of the land laying unused on the spot, therefore, it is violation of the sanction granted to the petitioner, therefore, the land stand vested in the State Government under Section 167 of the Act; feeling aggrieved, the petitioner moved review application before the Collector, which came to be dismissed on 1st of August, 2013; thereafter, appeal filed by the petitioner before the Commissioner, Kumaon Division was also came to be dismissed vide order dated 30.04.2014 and thereafter, review application filed by the petitioner before the Commissioner, Kumaun Division was also dismissed by order dated 05.11.2014; feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of present writ petition.

(3.) I have heard Mr. K.P. Upadhyay, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. R.C. Arya, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State/respondents, and have carefully perused the record.