2025:UHC:668 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPMS No.178 of 2025 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Mr. Ajeet Kumar Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Yogesh Chandra Tiwari, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. 2. Petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction against the State Government, in which Collector/District Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar was also a party. He also filed a temporary injunction application in the said suit praying that tin shed constructed over the land in question may not be demolished without following due process of law. Learned trial Court rejected the temporary injunction application, on 27.05.2022, by holding that petitioner could not establish a prima facie case for grant of temporary injunction. The Misc. Appeal filed by petitioner has also been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar, on 08.10.2024. Thus, feeling aggrieved, petitioner has approached this Court challenging these two orders. 3. Perusal of the impugned orders reveals that petitioner claimed that he was adopted by one Variam Singh S/o Guru Dutt Singh, to whom the land in question was allotted under Government Grants Act. The allotment made in favour of Variam Singh was however cancelled vide order dated 09.03.2015 for violation of conditions of allotment. On the date of passing of cancellation 2025:UHC:668 order, Variam Singh was not alive. In his suit, petitioner claimed that he is adopted son of the allottee, Variam Singh, therefore, he has inherited the rights available to Variam Singh. Learned trial Court held that the land in question is Government land, which was allotted to Variam Singh and, after cancellation of allotment order, no one, not even Variam Singh, can claim any right over the land in question. 4. The view taken by learned trial Court cannot be faulted. The order of cancellation of allotment has become final in the absence of any challenge. There is no material on record to show that petitioner was adopted by Variam Singh therefore his locus to challenge said order is also doubtful. Thus, Appellate Court was thus justified in dismissing the Appeal filed by the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that principles of natural justice were violated, inasmuch as, petitioner was not heard while cancelling the allotment made in favour of Variam Singh. 6. Learned State Counsel, however, submits that the land in question was allotted to Variam Singh subject to certain conditions and petitioner is not a legal representative of Variam Singh and even if petitioner’s claim, that he was in possession over the land in question at the time of passing of cancellation order is taken on its face value, then also petitioner does not have any right of hearing and only a legal heir of Variam Singh can claim such right. He further submits that these issues are to be 2025:UHC:668 considered by the trial Court while deciding the suit finally and while considering prayer for interim relief, these issues are not germane. 7. This Court finds substance in the submission made by learned State Counsel. Since petitioner was unable to make out prima facie case for grant of temporary injunction, therefore, learned trial Court rightly rejected the prayer made by him. Grant of temporary injunction is discretionary and discretion has been exercised by the trial Court as per the settled norms, therefore, there is no scope for interference. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. However, petitioner shall be at liberty to raise all contentions before the trial Court at the time of final hearing in the suit. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 10.02.2025 Arpan 2025:UHC:668