HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Special Appeal No. 317 of 2025 Manoj Narain Agarwal ….....Appellant Versus State of Uttarakhand & others ….….Respondents Present:- Mr. B.D. Pande, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Yogesh Chandra Tiwari, Additional C.S.C. for the State. Dated: 26th September, 2025 JUDGMENT Coram: Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) By means of the instant appeal, the appellant seeks modification of the order dated 08.09.2025, passed by this Court in WPMS No.2589 of 2025, Manoj Narain Agarwal Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others (“the writ petition”). The interim order speaks that, “till the next date of listing, the construction raised by the appellant over the land in question shall not be demolished.” The appellant seeks modification to the effect that an order of status quo in respect to the land in question with the further directions to the respondents to permit the appellant to harvest the crop standing on the land of the appellant may be passed. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant’s predecessors-in-interest, was granted a huge piece of 2 land; the appellant is still in possession of it; in the writ petition, challenge is made to the communication dated 17.12.2022, made by the respondent no.2, the Deputy Collector, Kiccha, District Udham Singh Nagar to the District Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar. By this communication, it was informed that list A and B has been prepared under G.E.T.A. Form 11 (Rule 23) for further proceedings. 4. He further submits that the appellant has a house constructed on the land, and his crop is also standing. Therefore, the impugned interim order may be modified by permitting the appellant to harvest the crop standing on the land. 5. Learned State Counsel submits that in the year 1933, the appellant’s predecessors-in-interest, was given lease of a land. After the promulgation of the U.P. Govt. Estate Thekedari Abolition Rules, 1960 (“the Act”), in the year 2005, a notice for eviction was given to the occupants under the Act. Thereafter, multiple writ petitions were filed, which were decided on 21.02.2014, against which Special Appeal No.62 of 2014 was preferred, which has also been dismissed on 13.08.2025 and the review has also been dismissed on 08.09.2025. He submits that in the writ petition, challenge has been made to the final list A and B prepared under the Act; before the impugned communication dated 17.12.2022, on 03.11.2022, the Collector had directed the Sub Divisional Magistrate to prepare list A and B and that order was also challenged, but the order was upheld. He submits that now nothing remains even in the order dated 17.12.2022 of the respondent no.3. According to him, the possession has already 3 been taken on 16.08.2025. He submits that although there is some crop standing on the land, but, according to learned State Counsel, as per instructions, the standing crop does not belong to the appellant. It belongs to legal heirs of Shiv Narayan. He submits that the standing crop would be properly harvested and auctioned, and the proceeds shall be deposited in the government account. 6. What is stated is that the possession of the land has already been taken, and there have been a long history of the litigations. The litigations and their results, as stated by learned State Counsel, have not been doubted by learned counsel for the appellant. 7. Having considered the entirety of facts, this Court is of the view that no modification is required in the impugned order. Therefore, there is no substance in the appeal and it deserves to be dismissed, accordingly. 8. The appeal is dismissed. (Alok Mahra, J.) (Ravindra Maithani, J.) 26.09.2025 Ravi Bisht