HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No.1454 of 2014 08th October, 2025 Sri Jamshed ………..Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others ………….Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Arvind Vashistha, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Neelima Mishra Joshi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R.C. Joshi, B.H. for the State. Mr. Atul Bansal, Advocate for the respondent no.5. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. By means of this writ petition the petitioner is seeking issuance of writ of certiorari quashing the impugned orders dated 26.05.2014, passed by learned Collector, Haridwar as well as order dated 15.05.2007, passed by learned Tehsildar/Assistant Collector Ist Class, Haridwar and further issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents and their servants not to interfere in the peaceful possession of the petitioners in respect of the property in-question. 2. The facts in brief are that petitioner’s father held physical possession and was also the owner of the property in-question since 1971 and after his death now the petitioner and his brothers are the owners of the property. Respondent no.5 allegedly due to animosity filed two eviction proceedings against the petitioner and his brother in the court of Tehsildar/Assistant Collector Ist Class, Haridwar, which were registered as Case No.7 of 2005, Gram Sabha Vs. Yamin, and Case No.8 of 2005, Gram Sabha Vs. Jamshed, under Section 122-B of 1 U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, 1950. It is further alleged that the eviction order dated 15.05.2007 was passed without hearing the petitioners. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order the petitioners preferred a revision in the court of learned Collector Haridwar along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, but the revisional court on 06.01.2014 dismissed the said revision on the grounds of it being time barred. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is layman and therefore he is not well versed with law and this was the reason that the revision could not have been filed within time. It is further submitted that the respondents are specifically vindictively targeting the petitioner and are seeking his eviction inspite of the fact that certain other persons also live in the same property. It is further submitted that the disputed land was allotted by Gram Panchayat Rajpura in the year 1971 to the petitioners father and few other persons and all of them are residing there, but respondent no.5 out of jealousy are targeting petitioner and his brothers. Learned counsel further submits that petitioner is very poor person and has no other source of livelihood and the said land was given to his father to make their ends meet and therefore evicting them would violate their fundamental rights envisaged under Articles 14, 19 and 21. 4. Respondent nos.2, 3 and 4 in their counter affidavit submit that the order dated 15.05.2007 by learned Tehsildar/Assistant Collector Ist Class, Haridwar was passed after following the principles of natural justice and was given on merits. They also submit that petitioner failed to produce any documentary evidence in support of his ownership over the said property and 2 inspite of being aware regarding the order dated 15.05.2007 could not give any satisfactory explanation regarding inordinate delay of 6 years 8 months in filing the revision. 5. It is also submitted that the disputed land is reserved for manure pits only and the petitioner is in illegal possession of it and has been therefore been already evicted from it. 6. Having heard the rival contentions of the counsel for the parties and after perusal of material on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner had always objected the fact of his being in possession on Khasra No.43. But on the basis of report of Lekhpal proceedings were initiated against him under Section 122-B of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act 1950. On perusal of the report, the report appears to be highly ambiguous as Lekhpal himself stated in his evidence before the learned trial court/Assistant Collector-1st Class that he could not identify Khasra No.43 without documents and he was not in possession of those revenue records at the time of initiating the notice under Section 122-B of UP ZA and LR Act. Moreover the revisional court has dismissed the revision only on the ground of delay. On perusal of counter affidavit filed by respondents, one more thing appears to be strange i.e., the petitioner has been evicted for Khasra No.43 inspite of the fact that he himself admits that is not in possession of it. 7. In view of the above peculiar and twisted facts this Court deems it expedient to remand the matter back to revisional court after condoning the delay in filing the revision and to hear the revision on merits as per law. The judgment and order dated 26.05.2014 passed by the 3 Collector, Haridwar in Case No.41 of 2013, Jamshed Vs. Gram Sabha is hereby set-aside. Moreover, in the interest of justice and to prevent ends of justice being defeated, this Court finds it expedient to restore the possession of petitioner on the land which he was evicted from immediately. The respondents are directed not to interfere in the peaceful possession of petitioner till the aforementioned revision is heard and decided on merits. 8. Accordingly writ petition being stands allowed. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 08.10.2025 SK 4