2025:UHC:9250 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPMS/2805/2025 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Mr. Rajesh Pandey, Advocate for the petitioners. 2. Mr. Suyash Pant, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. 3. There is no representation for the caveator. 4. Petitioners are aggrieved by order dated 04.06.1996, passed by Additional District Magistrate (Administration), Nainital, in Case No. 51/28/1995-96, as affirmed by Commissioner, Kumaon Division, Nainital in Revision No. 23/15-16/37/15-16/96/15- 16/33/23-24. 5. The Additional District Magistrate, vide order dated 04.06.1996, cancelled the lease of land, granted to the predecessor-in-interest of petitioners for agricultural purposes. The said lease was granted under Government Grants Act, 1895 with a condition that the land shall be used for agriculture purpose only; neither title nor possession over the leased land shall be transferred to any person nor shall it be kept as mortgaged or collateral security for obtaining a loan. 2025:UHC:9250 6. Additional District Magistrate has cancelled the lease on the ground that leased land was sold by predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners to one Mr. Rajkumar, on 28.06.1984. 7. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that notice in respect of the proceedings initiated by Additional District Magistrate (Administration), Nainital was not served upon the petitioners and the decision to cancel the lease was taken behind the back of predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners. 8. Learned State Counsel concedes that from perusal of the order passed by Additional District Magistrate, it is revealed that the notice sent to predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners could not be served upon him. Thus, he concedes that petitioners were not given reasonable opportunity of hearing by the Additional District Magistrate concerned. 9. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that the issue of violation of principles of natural justice, was raised by petitioners before the Commissioner, in appeal, however, the Divisional Commissioner overlooked the said aspect and affirmed the order passed by the Additional District Magistrate (Administration). 10. Since the decision to cancel the lease granted to predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners has evil and civil consequences to 2025:UHC:9250 the petitioners, therefore, any order regarding cancellation of lease has to be passed in conformity with principles of natural justice. 11. Since the notice sent to the predecessor- in-interest of petitioners could not be served upon him, as is reflected from the order passed by the Additional District Magistrate, therefore, on this ground alone, the writ petition is allowed. The orders passed by Additional District Magistrate (Administration), Nainital, as affirmed by Commissioner are set aside and the matter is remitted back to the District Magistrate, who shall take decision in the matter and pass appropriate order, within six months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order. 12. Mr. Rajesh Pandey, learned counsel for petitioners assures the Court that petitioners will file their objection before the District Magistrate, within two weeks from today and petitioners will not claim any further extension of time. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 15.10.2025 Navin NAVEEN CHANDRA Digitally signed by NAVEEN CHANDRA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3be23325146e76a0642bdf4943fb9046f48 7df006da82a131bb4e4403d3c0a15, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=18167EEFB5CA8CFFD421A103819D A875643AF56D653D095C6ED9A86DAAB21CE5, cn=NAVEEN CHANDRA Date: 2025.10.16 09:56:51 +05'30'