(1.) Heard Mr. S.K. Mandal, Advocate for the petitioners, Mr. K.P. Upadhyay, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand as well as Mr. M.S. Tyagi, Advocate for respondent no. 7. Petitioner no. 1 is a Society registered under Societies Registration Act, 1860 and is presently running a school at Tehsil Khatima, Village Pahainiya, District Udham Singh Nagar. Petitioner no. 2 is the Administrative Officer of this Society. The petitioners have filed the present writ petition with the prayer primarily seeking a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus to command the respondents not to interfere in the peaceful possession of the petitioners on the land Khata Khatouni no. 158 plot no. 925 area 0.980 hectare which is situated in village Pahainiya, Tehsil Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar. The case of the petitioners is that by a general meeting of 'Gram Sabha', Pahainiya a resolution was passed whereby the aforesaid land which is presently in dispute was to be given to the petitioner society for establishing and running a junior high school. However, the subsequent application of the petitioner society to the revenue authorities and the district administration for grant of 'Patta' in its favour did not materialize. Meanwhile respondent no. 7 Smt. Ram Pyari who is presently, according to the petitioners, 104 years of age claims that the said land was in fact given on 'Patta' to her way-back in the year 1988 vide order dated 21.4.1988. Consequent to the said 'patta' given to respondent no. 7 entries were also made in the revenue record in her favour. As per the learned counsel for respondent no. 7 the 'patta' has not been cancelled nor these entries in the revenue records have been changed. Therefore, in a nutshell learned counsel for respondent no. 7 refutes the claim of the petitioners on the said disputed property and asserts her claim.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners Mr. S.K. Mandal states that the said 'patta' which was granted to respondent no. 7 was granted because of a fraud committed by the then Tehsildar and consequently the 'patta' was withdrawn. To substantiate this claim, the petitioner has filed a copy of the letter dated 15.7.1988 of the concerned 'Patwari' whereby he has said that the said 'patta' was wrongly granted by him to respondent no. 7 and he has already informed the concerned superior authorities to cancel the 'patta'. This item was also published in the newspaper 'Amar Ujala' on 26.8.1988. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent no. 7 Sri M.S. Tyagi says that the revenue records which have not been disputed nor the 'patta' is cancelled. On these set of facts certain averment has been made for urgent interference by this Court in as much as the petitioners claim that respondent no. 7 in connivance with the other respondents which are the revenue authorities are trying to put hindrance in peaceful possession of the petitioners and in running of the school on the said land and the atmosphere which presently prevails in the school due to the activities of the respondents is not conducive for education. This Court had earlier passed an interim order on 1.4.2009. Learned counsel for the 3 petitioners Mr. S.K. Mandal states that no action has been taken by the respondents as yet.
(3.) With these directions, writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.