2025:UHC:1572-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. G. NARENDAR AND THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MR. ALOK MAHRA 6TH MARCH, 2025 WPSB NO.27 OF 2022 Nandan Singh Nagniyal …… Petitioner Vs. State of Uttarakhand …… Respondent Present:- Mr. I.D. Paliwal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Ms. Rajni Supyal, learned Brief Holder for the State. JUDGMENT: (per Mr. G. Narendar C.J.) The petitioner is before this Court, being aggrieved by the order of the Uttarakhand Public Services Tribunal, whereby the Tribunal was pleased to dismiss the claim petition. 2. The facts, in a nutshell, are that petitioner was discharging the duties as the S.D.M./Assistant Collector 1st Class, Bazpur and decided a review case, bearing No.22/94, instituted invoking the provisions of Section 229-B of the Z.A. & L.R. Act, in which the State Government was arrayed as defendant nos.9 & 10. The allegations are that, in the course of adjudicating the declaratory suit, the petitioner has declared the rights of the claimants therein, on the basis of adverse possession, 1 2025:UHC:1572-DB and the land, over which such declaration was issued, was a revenue land belonging to the Government. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the Tribunal has failed to appreciate the fact that remedy on judicial side was available and in fact, an appeal has been preferred by the State and the same has been set aside; and in that view, no loss was suffered. The fact that a charge sheet was issued to the petitioner, and that the enquiry was conducted in accordance with the Rules are not in dispute. The only ground that is canvassed by the petitioner is that the petitioner was discharging duties as a Court and, being a Judge, he is entitled for protection. 4. The said submission cannot be appreciated for the short reason that the petitioner was discharging duties as a S.D.M. and in the discharge of the duties as a S.D.M., was also discharging certain quasi-judicial functions; that apart a reading of the provisions of Section 229 and Section 229-B would clearly obviate any detailed discussion in this regard. Section 229-B of the ZA & LR Act reads as under:- 229B. Declaratory suit by person claiming to be an asami of a holding or part thereof. - (1) Any person claiming to be an asami of a holding or any part thereof, whether exclusively or jointly with any other person, may sue the landholder for a declaration of his 2 2025:UHC:1572-DB rights as asami in such holding or part, as the case may be. (2) In any suit under sub-section (1) any other person claiming to hold as asami under the land-holder shall be impleaded as defendant. (3) The provisions of sub-sections (1) and (2) shall mutatis mutandis apply to a suit by a person claiming to be a bhumidhar with the amendment that for the word "landholder" the words "the State Government” and the Gaon Sabha are substituted therein. 5. Sub-section (1) of Section 229-B enables any person, claiming to be an Asami, to sue the landholder for declaration of his rights as Asami. The word ‘Asami’ is found in Clause (3) of the 4 clauses detailed under Section 129 - classes of tenure. 6. Be that as it may, as noted supra, the suit may be instituted against the landholder, and not the State Government. The petitioner, while discharging duties was duty bound to ascertain, as to whether the said proceedings itself was maintainable. That apart, we see that the petitioner has been let off with a light penalty of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect. 7. The right to entertain and discharge quasi-judicial functions is not a license for the Officer to act arbitrarily. In the facts involved, it is apparent that the order came to be passed without reference to the various provisions of the Act. 8. The Tribunal has heard in detail and considered all 3 2025:UHC:1572-DB aspects of the matter and has passed a considered order, upholding the punishment of the penalty imposed. The scope of review before this Court being limited to any apparent illegality, no such illegality is pointed out. 9. The aspect, as to whether the provision of Section 334 would inure to the benefit of the petitioner, also need not detain us for long. Section 334 of the ZA & LR Act reads as under:- “334. Protection of action taken under this Act. (1) No officer or servant of the Government shall be liable in any civil or criminal proceeding in respect of any act done or purporting to be done under this Act or under any rules made thereunder, if the act was done in good faith and in the course of execution of the duties or the discharge of functions, imposed by or under this Act (2) No suit or other legal proceeding shall lie against the State Government for any damage caused or likely to be caused or any injury suffered or likely to be suffered by virtue of any provisions of this Act or by anything in good faith done or intended to be done in pursuance of this Act or any rules made thereunder.” 10. The charges are under the disciplinary rules, and cannot be construed as civil or criminal proceedings. The maintainability of the disciplinary proceedings has also been gone into by the Uttarakhand Public Services Tribunal, which has rendered the findings in the affirmative. No error in the said findings is pointed out. 4 2025:UHC:1572-DB In that view of the matter, the writ petition is misconceived and is accordingly rejected. (G. NARENDAR, C.J.) (ALOK MAHRA, J.) Dated: 06.03.2025 BS 5