BHAV SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred, by the third respondent in the writ petition, aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 3061 of 2016 dated 22.10.2019 quashing the order dated 27.05.2019 passed by the Additional Secretary, Government of Uttarakhand; and the subsequent order dated 15.07.2016 by which the District Magistrate / Collector, Tehri Garhwal had executed a lease-deed in favour of the appellant-third-respondent.

(2.) Facts, to the limited extent necessary, are that the Additional Secretary, Government of Uttarakhand passed order dated 27.05.2016 directing the District Magistrate, Tehri Garhwal to allot the subject-land, to the appellant-third respondent, for construction of a parking-lot. By the subsequent order dated 15.07.2016, the District Magistrate, Tehri Garhwal executed a lease-deed in favour of the third-respondent to construct and operate a parking lot in the subject-land which belonged to the Gram Sabha of 'Banglow Ki Kandi', and is classified in the revenue-records as 'Banjar land' in terms of Section 9(3)(E) of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (for short the '1950 Act'). Alleging that allotment of the subject-land, for the commercial purpose of establishing a parking-lot, was in violation of the earlier Government Orders dated 09.05.1984 and 12.09.1997, besides being contrary to various provisions of the 1950 Act, respondent nos. 3 to 7 in this appeal filed Writ Petition (M/S) No. 3061 of 2016.

(3.) In the order under appeal dated 22.10.2019, the learned Single Judge noted that the allotment had been made in favour of appellant-third respondent on his moving an application for allotment of land on lease, for a period of ninety years, for establishing and running a parking area near Kempty Fall; on this application, the Additional Secretary, Government of Uttarakhand had passed order dated 27.05.2016 granting allotment; consequent to this order, the District Magistrate/Collector, District Tehri Gahrwal, by his order dated 15.07.2016, had executed a lease deed in favour of the appellant-third respondent; respondent nos. 3 to 7 herein (petitioners in the writ petition) had alleged that this was done, since the appellant-third respondent was a former Pradhan of the Gram Sabha, and had close links with the powers that be; it was because of his close proximity, with the authorities and politicians, that he had procured a lease in his favour for a period of ninety years; the land had been given to him not for agricultural purposes, but purely for commercial purposes; it was not the case of the appellant-third respondent that he was a landless person, and needed land for agriculture purposes and for his sustenance and livelihood; the subject land, of an extent of 0.200 hectare, allegedly contained more than 1000 trees, which were required to be felled for construction of a parking-lot; and it formed a part of the forest area.