MUSTAFA Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since common issues are raised in both these appeals, we are disposing of the same by this common judgment.

(2.) Appellants are the writ petitioners. The appellants filed the writ petitions seeking a mandamus directing respondent nos. 3 and 4 not to remove/demolish their shop/hotel. The case of the appellants to be gleaned from the facts in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1654 of 2017, which we treat as the leading case among the two cases, appears to be as follows:

(3.) The short point, which was raised before the learned Single Judge was that in view of Section 43, each and every land falling within the territory of State of Uttarakhand is the property of the State of Uttarakhand. Respondent nos. 3 and 4 have no right whatsoever over the same and, therefore, the action is illegal. The learned Single Judge, however, was apprised by the learned State counsel of the fact that the land in question, though is within the territory of Uttarakhand and belongs to the State of Uttarakhand, but presently it is under the management of U.P. Irrigation Department and the management also vests with the State of U.P. under the provisions of the U.P. State Reorganization Act. The petitioners have not been able to show any title, which is better than either State of Uttarakhand or the State of U.P., therefore, no relief can be granted, and the writ petitions were dismissed.