WPMB/997/2006 of NANDAN AGARWAL Vs STATE and ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Review Application No.395 of 2007 On behalf of

Ms.Paramjeet Kaur

….. Applicant

Writ Petition (M/B) No. 997 of 2006

Nandan Agarwal and others

…….. Petitioners

Versus

State of Uttaranchal through its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Civil Secretariat, Dehradun.

…….. Respondents ………………….

Sri Paresh Tripathi Advocate on behalf of applicant. Sri K.P.Upadhyay, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand/Respondents.

Date: July 23,2008

Hon’ble P.C.Verma,J.Hon’ble B.S.Verma,J.

This review application has been filed to review the order dated 22.09.2006 whereby the writ petition has been disposed of finally.

2. Heard Sri Paresh Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant at length as well as Sri K.P.Upadhyay, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents.

3. The simple question involved in the writ petition is relating to Government order dated 13[th]January, 2006, whereby the Government ordered for

settlement of 450 acres of land in favour of 200 dispossessed families which was declared surplus by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Escorts Farm Limited, Udham Singh Nagar. The Government Order dated 13[th]January, 2006 (Annexure No.1 to the writ petition) refers to Section 25 of Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (for short the Act) for settlement of land. Sec.25 of the Act reads as under:-

“25. Use of surplus land for other public purposes.- The State Government may instead of settling any surplus land in accordance with the provisions of this Act, use, or permit the use either temporarily or permanently of the whole or any portion of such land for any purpose of which such land could have been acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.”

4. perusal of Section 25 above shows that the State Government may instead of settling any surplus land permit the use either temporarily or permanently of the whole or any portion of such land for any purpose of which such land could have been acquired under the Land Acquisition Act. Further, settlement is provided under Section 26 of the Act which provides that settlement of surplus land can be made by the Collector on behalf of the State Government in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 26 –A and 27 of the Act. Section 26-A is not relevant to the present case.

5. Section 27 of the Act deals with settlement of surplus land. Sub Section (1) of Section 27 provides

settlement of land in favour of the Gaon Sabha. Sub Section (2) of Sec.27 is relevant for the purposes of interpretation of the Government Order dated 13[th]January, 2006, which reads as under:

“27. (2) The State Government may either settle any surplus land in accordance with sub-section (1) or sub-section (3) or use or permit its use in accordance with Section 25 or manage or otherwise deal with it in such manner as it thinks fit.”

6. Though there is reference of Section 25 but the source of power lies under Sub Section (2) of Section 27 of the Act in which such Government Order could be issued.

7. It is settled law that incorrect reference of section in an order will not vitiate the order if the source of power is traceable in the statute somewhere else. Reliance is placed on in Pargraph 126 of the case of Union of India and another versus Tulsiram Patel,reported in (1985) 3 Supreme Court Cases, Page 398.

8. Therefore, the Government Order is perfectly valid and the Collector is bound by the Government Order. Any committee constituted for the purpose of settlement of land and its recommendations can not override the order issued by State Government. Therefore, the Collector is obliged to act in accordance with the Government Order and to settle the land, measuring 450 acres in favour of 200 dispossessed families in the light of the Government Order.

9. The Collector has no power or authority under sub-Section (2) of Section 27 of the Act to issue any order on his behalf to add or amend or nullify the effect of the order issued under sub-Section (2) of Section 27 of the Act. Therefore, the orders dated 13[th] January, 2006 and 5[th] April, 2007 issued by the Collector, Udham Singh Nagar are quashed. The Collector, Udham Singh Nagar is directed to settle the land according to the Government Order dated 13[th] January, 2006 issued by the State Government which appears to have been issued at the instance of the persons whose names are in the list contained in Annexure No.-III to the writ petition.

10. The other orders passed in this writ petition as well as in review application shall stand modified to the extent to give way to this order in its implementation. In the meantime, the status quo shall be maintained as on today.

11. Proceeding pending before the Commissioner relating to cancellation of allotment is hereby dropped.

12. Learned counsel for the petitioner-applicant Sri Paresh Tripathi submitted that petitioners name are contained in Annexure III to the writ petition, they are also included in 200 families and have also been dispossessed. They are also entitled to the same benefit in view of the Government Order dated 13[th] January, 2006. The Collector, Udham Singh Nagar shall pass fresh orders of allotment in accordance with Government Order dated 13[th] January, 2006 if land to similarly situated

persons have been allotted like the petitioners, to the petitioners also.

13. Review petition is disposed of accordingly.

(B.S.Verma,J.)(P.C.Verma,J.) 23.07.2008 23.07.2008

P.Singh