HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 531 of 2025 (M/S) Gulam Rasool alias Gami ….......Petitioner Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others …..... Respondents Present : Mr. Karthik Jayashankar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Anil Dabral, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State/respondents. JUDGMENT Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) By means of the instant petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs:- “a) ISSUE a writ, order or direction quashing the order 02.03.2017 issued by Respondent No.2 to the extent that it erroneously declared that Plot No.650, Gujjar Basti, P.O. Gaindikhata, P.S. Shyampur, District Haridwar, Uttarakhand – 246763, was never allotted to the Petitioner’s grandfather, Late Mr. Lal Sain, and that the Petitioner was not entitled to reside and cultivate therein by virtue of being his legal heir; b) ISSUE as writ, order or direction directing the Respondents to allow the petitioner to continue residing and cultivating the subject Plot No.650; c) AWARD the costs to the petitioner; and d) PASS any other order that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2 3. In fact, earlier the petitioner has filed WPMS No.3206 of 2016, Gulam Rasool vs. State of Uttarakhand and others (“the first petition”), seeking the following relief:- “I. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding and directing the respondent authorities to record petitioner as the owner of the property of plot no.650, Area 10 bigha situated at Gujjar Basti, P.O. Gaindikhata, P.S. shyampur, District-Haridwar on the basis of the will of his grandfather, Lal Sain and allow the petitioner to sear the crops on his possession and further restrain respondent no.5, Suleman from interfering in the peaceful possession of the petitioner.” 4. The first petition was rejected by the Court on 14.12.2016. In the first petition, it was also argued on behalf of the petitioner that he is owner of the property- in-question and the respondent is duty bound to consider the claim of the petitioner. But, the Court had given liberty to the petitioner. In para 4 of the judgment dated 14.12.2016, the Court observed as follows:- “4. This court is of the considered view that prayer made by the petitioner cannot be allowed in writ jurisdiction. But, considering the statement of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is disposed of by permitting the petitioner to file a representation before the respondent no. 2. Petitioner shall also file the required document showing his ownership over the land in question. In case, such representation is filed within a 3 period of one month from today, the same shall be considered and decided by the respondent no. 2 within a period of three months thereafter.” 5. Pursuant to the judgment, passed in the first petition, the petitioner made a representation to the respondent no.2, but the representation was rejected on 02.03.2017, which is Annexure No.15 to the writ petition. In that rejection order, the respondent no.2 has recorded that, in fact, plot no.650 was never allotted to Lal Sain. It was proposed to be allotted to him, but before it could be allotted, he died. Therefore, the allotment was not made. The order dated 02.03.2017, at para no.8, the respondent no.2 records that, in fact, the petitioner also claimed right on plot nos.650 on the basis of a will of Lal Sain, but it records that since the plot no.650 was never allotted to Lal Sain, there was no question of any right having being accrued to the petitioner. 6. The Court wanted to know from the learned counsel for the petitioner, as to how successive petitions can be filed for the same relief? He would refer to Annexure No.7 to the writ petition, which is a communication dated 28.11.2015, by respondent no.3, to argue that by this communication dated 28.11.2015 allotment of plot no.650 was made in favour of the 4 grandfather of the petitioner, Lal Sain. This argument is not correct. Annexure No.7 does not allot any land to the grandfather of the petitioner, Lal Sain. In fact, what it records is that the plot no.650 was proposed to be allotted to Lal Sain. It does not record that the plot had already been allotted to Lal Sain and if it is read with Annexure No.15, the order on representation passed by the respondent no.2 on 02.03.2017, it is crystal clear that before allotment could be made, Lal Sain died, and allotment was not made. 7. The petitioner had once filed a writ petition which has been decided. The petitioner’s representation has been decided subsequently with a detailed reasoned order, which records that the plot no.650 was never allotted to Lal Sain. The petitioner could not derive any right on the plot from Lal Sain. Therefore, this Court does not see any reason to entertain the instant petition. Accordingly, the petition deserves to be dismissed at the stage of admission itself. 8. The petition is dismissed in limine. (Ravindra Maithani, J.) 24.02.2025 Sanjay