2025:UHC:8211 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPMS/2630/2025 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Mr. M.K. Goyal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Suyash Pant, Standing Counsel for the State. 2. Petitioners are aggrieved by report dated 30.04.2025, submitted by Revenue Sub Inspector, Naseerpur, Khurd, Tehsil & District Haridwar, wherein it is stated that the land allotted to petitioners is public utility land and is recorded as water body in the revenue records. 3. Stand taken by petitioners is that ownership rights were given to them over the land in question, under Swamitva Yojna introduced by Central Government in the year 2021 and the Scheme was implemented by the State Government. Petitioners have enclosed certain documents as Annexure-2 to the writ petition, in support of their contention that title of the land was given to them. 4. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that Revenue Sub Inspector has given false report that the land in question is water body, although there is no water on the land in question and two ponds are situate over khasra No. 394 and 428, which are at a distance from 2025:UHC:8211 the land allotted to them. 5. It is the case of the petitioners that in the floods which affected District Muzaffarnagar in the year 1953-54, agricultural land and residential houses of large number of persons were damaged and State Government rehabilitated all the flood affected persons of District Muzaffarnagar, by allotting agricultural land in pathri bankhand, District Saharanpur and residential plots were separately given to them in other villages of District Saharanpur. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners points out that District Haridwar was carved out of Saharanpur district sometime in 1990 and the land so allotted to the petitioners became part of District Haridwar. Thus, petitioners contend that the land in question is continuously in their possession since 1953-54. 7. Learned State Counsel, however, points out that the document enclosed as Anneuxre-2 indicates that these letters were issued on 04.12.2021. Thus he submits that petitioners are unauthorisedly occupying the land which remains submerged during rainy season. 8. Since the competent authority has not passed any order as yet and petitioners have challenged a report submitted by Revenue Sub Inspector; on the ground that contents of the report are not correct, therefore, the writ petition 2025:UHC:8211 is disposed of by permitting petitioners to file objection against the report submitted by Revenue Sub Inspector. 9. It shall be open to them to raise all contentions, whether legal or factual in the objection. 10. It is made clear that if petitioners file objection against report of Revenue Sub Inspector within three weeks from today, the Assistant Collector concerned shall take any decision in the matter, after considering the objection filed by petitioners. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 15.09.2025 Mahinder/ MAHINDER SINGH Digitally signed by MAHINDER SINGH DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=da6212e6e78d94ed3134842bc6a8d6ca168979ca7b8c2f031a92d1a18b08923c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=AB77B7C5B240908B392BE84F5CDD4C2AF35DC4626D305B1BC9EA4BABA43D2B8F, cn=MAHINDER SINGH Date: 2025.09.17 17:39:05 +05'30'