2025:UHC:3438-DB SL. No . Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS SPA No. 982 of 2018 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J. Judgment:(per Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) Mr. Sudhir Kumar, Advocate for the appellant. 2. Mr. G.S. Negi, learned Additional C.S.C. for the State of Uttarakhand. 3. Petitioner filed Writ Petition (M/S) No. 23 of 2016, challenging rejection of his application for freehold right in respect of a plot of Nazul land. The said Writ Petition was dismissed by learned Single Judge, vide judgement dated 31.10.2018, on the ground that status of petitioner qua the land in question is that of tenant, therefore, he does not have right to get freehold right, as per Nazul Policy. 4. The operative portion of the impugned judgment is extracted below:- “From perusal of record, it transpires that though District Magistrate had not given opportunity of hearing to the petitioner but Commissioner has passed detailed order after hearing the petitioner. Merely residing in the Nazool property does not give any right to the petitioner to get the nazool land converted into freehold. The case of the petitioner does not cover under the Nazool Policy. Therefore, there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned orders. Accordingly, writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.” 5. The view taken by learned Single Judge cannot be faulted. No lease in respect of Nazul land was granted to the appellant/writ petitioner. The Nazul land was leased out in favour of one Mr. Vishambar Saran, while petitioner was inducted as tenant in the house built by Vishambar Saran, over the land which was leased out to him. Thus, appellant/writ petitioner cannot have better right of getting the leasehold right converted into freehold right than what was available to Mr. Vishambar 2025:UHC:3438-DB Saran. Thus, there is no scope for interference with the impugned judgment. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant has deposited Rs. 89,100/- on 02.04.2008 along with his application for freehold right. If that is so, the Collector shall consider return of the said amount to the appellant. The Collector concerned shall also take decision regarding the interest, if any, payable to the appellant on the said amount. (Ashish Naithani, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 05.05.2025 Shiksha SHIKSHA BINJOLA Digitally signed by SHIKSHA BINJOLA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3410ef86ae41ec9fbabcd5dba6b3a2c24b5 aa08b09c12f21822fbd40bf639b1c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=FD80A2D028949381C52796A542D7 FF0A9BED00E67B5283D205F18FE29BDF5DD9, cn=SHIKSHA BINJOLA Date: 2025.05.06 18:24:44 +05'30'