2025:UHC:9235-DB HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI G. NARENDAR AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHASH UPADHYAY Writ Petition Criminal No.1098 of 2025 15th October, 2025 Nizamuddin Khan ----Petitioners versus State Of Uttarakhand and Others ----Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Saurabh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. J.S. Virk, learned Deputy Advocate General with Mr. Rakesh Joshi, learned Brief Holder for the State Mr. B.D. Pande, learned counsel for respondent no.5. ------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT : (per Sri G. Narendar, C.J.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Deputy Advocate General for the State of Uttarakhand and the learned counsel for respondent no.5. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he had purchased certain parcels of land and he being an outsider had approached the Competent Authority to grant permission to enable the petitioner to purchase the land and that it is his case that he has purchased three parcels of land and that he is carrying on agricultural activities. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent no.5 would attempt to refute the same. He would submit that the petitioner is not in possession and that he has never been 1 2025:UHC:9235-DB in possession since the date of purchase and that in this regard they have approached the Civil Court for judgment and decree to declare the sale deed as null and void and that the Authority has also issued a notice to the petitioner stating that he has violated the permission conditions and in that view the proceedings have been initiated to cancel the permission granted earlier. 4. The relief sought for by the petitioner is as below:- I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent no.1 to 4 to provide adequate police protection to the petitioner for ensuring his safety and to enable him to carry on agricultural and horticultural activities on his lawfully purchased land without interference from the private respondents. 5. On a plain reading of the relief sought for, it is apparent that the petitioner is seeking protection to his life and limb and to continue carrying on his agriculture and horticulture activities. The fact that the petitioner has purchased the land under a registered sale deed after paying the stamp duty and paying the sale consideration is not in dispute. The fact that the sale deed was preceded by the necessary permissions is also not in dispute; in fact, the document which the respondent alleges to have 2 2025:UHC:9235-DB been issued by the authority, calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the permissions granted earlier should not be cancelled, would suffice to demonstrate that the petitioner has been granted the permission. In the light of the fact that the petitioner is holding a registered sale deed would suffice for this Court to grant the relief sought for by the petitioner. 6. Accordingly, the fourth respondent is directed to ensure the safety and security to the life and limb of the petitioner. 7. Writ petition stands disposed of, in the above terms. 8. There shall be no order as to costs. 9. It is needless to say that the Civil Court would hear and dispose of the matter strictly in accordance with law. (G. NARENDAR, C.J.) (SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.) Dated: 15.10.2025 R/SS 3