RAJ KUMAR SONI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHETHER any person who had purchased only 'malwa' of a building can validly assert that by his purchase he had also purchased the remaining constructions, if any, of which the purchased Malwa is not its part and even the land on which the 'Malwa' was kept and secure an order of transfer of that land on that basis which belongs to the Govt.?; (ii) WHETHER despite the express bar created by G.O. No. 1501/85(24)-I-6010 dated 9-10-1987 issued under the Government Grants (U. P. Amendment) Act authorising the Collector of a district to make grant of the Govt. land up to an area only and the Sub- Divisional Officer, Kotdwar was correct in ordering transfer in favour of the petitioners of the land in question, after penalising their transferor in whose favour he had made the grant earlier and after nullifying that grant, on the request of the petitioners who had claimed to have purchased only the 'malwa" yet had prayed to transfer the land in dispute itself without making any grant in their favour? (iii) WHETHER in the facts and circumstances the District Magistrate/Collector, Pauri Garhwal, was correct in law in nullifying the order of transfer aforementioned passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer in favour of the petitioners?, (iv) whether the transfer order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer can be held to be a Govt. Grant?; and (v) WHETHER in the peculiar facts and circumstances the order of the District Magistrate/Collector, Garhwal requires interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India? are the five questions which require our adjudication in this writ petition. The Prayers:-

(2.) THE first prayer of the petitioners is to quash the order dated 10-5-1999 passed by District Magistrate/Collector, Pauri (Respondent No. 2), as contained in Annexure-1, in Grant Case No. 65/98-99 State v. Umesh Kumar, setting aside the order dated 15-6-1995 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Kotdwar transferring 0.053 hectare of land in Khasra No. 1003, village Jhonk, District Pauri Garhwal (hereinafter referred to as the land in dispute) in case No. 9/94-95, by grant of a writ of Certiorari. THEir further prayer is to command the respondents not to give effect to the impugned order. THE Facts:-

(3.) ON behalf of the respondents Smt. Sunita Agrawal, the learned brief holder of the State, contended that valid reasons have been given by respondent No. 2; that on their own case and documents the petitioners had really purchased only 'malwa' and not the land or the alleged construction standing thereon from the Mahanth; the Sub-Divisional Officer lacked authority to settle the land in dispute in favor of the Mahanth, who was found to have violated the terms of the grant, yet he illegally proceeded to pass an order directing transfer in favour of the petitioners who have not produced their alleged lease deed before this Court and that is why they have set up a claim on the basis of their purchase from the Mahanth and the transfer order besides inheritance from Mahanth and accordingly, this writ petition is devoid of any substance and be dismissed.