2025:UHC:6886-DB HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition Misc. Single No. 2886 of 2022 06 August, 2025 Shashi Agarwal & others --Petitioners Versus State of Uttarakhand & others --Respondents with Writ Petition Misc. Single No. 2958 of 2022 06 August, 2025 Manoj Narain Agarwal --Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand & others --Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. A.S. Rawat, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mohd. Shafy, Advocate for the petitioners in WPMS No. 2886 of 2022. Mr. Arvind Vashistha, Senior Advocate, assisted by Ms. Devanshi Joshi, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Vivek Pathak, Advocate for the petitioner in WPMS No. 2958 of 2022 & respondent no. 3 in WPMS No. 2886 of 2022. Mr. Yogesh Chandra Tiwari and Mr. I.P. Kohli, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. Mr. Anurag Bisaria, Advocate for respondent no. 9 in WPMS No. 2958 of 2022. Mr. Pragya Prakash Upadhyay and Ms. Aditi Singh, Advocates for respondent no. 12. Mr. M.C. Kandpal, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Devesh Kandpal, Advocate for respondent no. 15. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Hon’ble Subhash Upadhyay, J. (Per: Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) JUDGMENT Since common questions of law and fact are involved in these writ petitions, therefore they are heard together and are being decided by a common judgment. However, for the sake of brevity, facts of Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2886 of 2022 alone are being 1 2025:UHC:6886-DB considered and discussed. 2. Petitioners have challenged the order dated 03.11.2022, passed by Collector, Udhamsingh Nagar, in proceedings under Section 6-A of U.P. Government Estates Thekedari Abolition Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as ‘GETA Act’), as amended from time to time. Petitioners allege that the order passed by Collector is not in accordance with paragraph no. 29 of the judgment, rendered by learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 963 of 2005 and other connected petitions. Paragraph No. 29 of the said judgment is extracted below:- “29. The only argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners, which can be said to be acceptable, is that 30 acres area has been wrongly mentioned in the notice and, therefore, on this count, the notice is not valid. The impugned notice issued by the Collector, on this count only, is set aside. Writ Petition No. 962 of 2005 (MS) and Writ Petition No. 963 of 2005 (MS) are partly allowed and the Collector, Udham Singh Nagar, is directed to initiate appropriate proceedings in accordance with law and in view of Section 6-A, quoted above, for determination of the ceiling area and separation of surplus area and to take steps accordingly against those tenure holders, who were recorded at the time of determination of lease or their successors in interest.” 3. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners relies upon order dated 02.04.2014, passed by coordinate Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No. 62 of 2014. Paragraph no. 1 of the said order is extracted below:- “The learned Advocate General submits that in compliance of the order under appeal, possession of the land has been taken by the State, which was in possession of the sub-lessees. The learned counsel for the appellants contends that the appellants are not concerned with the land, which was with the sub-lessees. A request is being made for maintenance of status quo. We direct that without due process of law, no part of the land in possession of the appellants shall be taken by the State and, at the same time, we make it clear that without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the respective 2 2025:UHC:6886-DB parties in the appeal, steps, as have been directed to be taken in paragraph 29 of the judgment under appeal, shall be taken by the State. However, in the event, the appeal is not heard and decided before final publication in accordance with the mandate contained in the ceiling law, the State will seek permission of this Court to publish the same.” 4. It is not in dispute that judgment rendered in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 963 of 2005 by learned Single Judge is under challenge in Special Appeal No. 62 of 2014. Thus, the adjudication, made by learned Single Judge, as referred in paragraph no. 29 of his judgment, would be subject to final outcome of the appeal. 5. Learned State Counsel submits that the order passed by Collector is strictly as per the observation made by learned Single Judge in paragraph no. 29 of the judgment, as learned Single Judge has held that the provisions of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 would be applicable for determining ceiling area, however, the procedure to be followed for determining ceiling area will be that of the GETA Act. Learned State Counsel has drawn our attention to paragraph no. 27 of the order passed by Collector, impugned herein, which supports his contention that the ceiling limit, as prescribed in U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960, was taken. He also refers to paragraph no. 28 of Collector’s order for contending that the procedure laid down in GETA Act was followed. Thus, he submits that there is no infirmity whatsoever in Collector’s Order and the challenge thrown by petitioners to the said order is without any substance. 6. Per contra, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the notice was issued to 3 2025:UHC:6886-DB the petitioners under Forms 9 & 10 of the Rules framed under GETA Act, therefore, the right of petitioners to indicate their choice as per Ceiling Act was denied to them. He further submits that the exemptions available to a tenure holder under Section 6 of Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 were also not given to petitioners, which has resulted in denial of right available to them in law. 7. This submission, made on behalf of petitioners, however is disputed by learned State Counsel, who contends that notice was issued to the petitioners under Form-11, Rule 23 of GETA Rules, before preparing List A & B. He further submits that notice under GETA Rules was issued to them by Registered Post and this notice was also pasted on the main door of the premises of petitioners; he further submits that petitioners though filed objection, but that was filed after preparation of List- A & B. 8. Mr. M.C. Kandpal, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent no. 15 submits that his client is a bonafide purchaser for consideration, however, name of his client is not being mutated on account of pendency of cases before this Court. He further submits that the land purchased by respondent no. 15 is not affected by the proceedings initiated under GETA Act, therefore, the revenue authorities be directed to mutate name of respondent no. 15 in revenue records. 9. Learned State Counsel, however, opposed this submission made on behalf of Mr. M.C. Kandpal and submitted that the petitioners have sold out the land regarding which bhumidhari right was given to them in 4 2025:UHC:6886-DB Village Anandpur, to certain persons, including respondent no. 15 and the revenue authorities have taken into account petitioners’ land situate in Village Anandpur for arriving at the ceiling area. He, therefore, submits that fate of land purchased by respondent no. 15 will also depend on the outcome of Special Appeal No. 62 of 2014. 10. Since the Collector has proceeded in the matter as per judgment rendered by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 963 (M/S) of 2005 and also as per the direction issued by Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No. 62 of 2014, therefore, the order passed by Collector cannot be faulted.. 11. Learned State Counsel is right in submitting that the judgment rendered by learned Single Judge Writ Petition No. 963 (M/S) of 2005 is under challenge before this Court, as such fate of the order passed by Collector (impugned herein) will depend upon the outcome of the Special Appeal. 12. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, as discussed above, we do not find any reason to interfere in the matter. No direction can also be issued in favour of respondent no. 15 at this stage. 13. The writ petitions, thus, fail and are dismissed. No order as to costs. (Subhash Upadhyay, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 06.08.2025 Navin 5 NAVEEN CHANDRA Digitally signed by NAVEEN CHANDRA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3be23325146e76a0642bdf4943fb9046f 487df006da82a131bb4e4403d3c0a15, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=18167EEFB5CA8CFFD421A103819 DA875643AF56D653D095C6ED9A86DAAB21CE5, cn=NAVEEN CHANDRA Date: 2025.08.14 15:22:22 +05'30'