Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 10026 (UTT)

GOPAL SINGH v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

WPMS/2470/2026 · 2026-08-17

Manoj Kumar Tiwari

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

UKHC010143632026 2026:UHC:7333 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPMS/2470/2026 Gopal Singh and another --Petitioners Versus State of Uttarakhand and others --Respondents Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Mr. Bhupendra Singh Bhandari, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. S.K. Nailwal, Standing Counsel for the State. 2. Petitioners were allotted a piece of land under Government Grants Act. The said allotment was cancelled by District Magistrate vide order dated 24.02.2026. Petitioner thereafter filed a Revision petition before Commissioner, Kumaon, which too was dismissed vide order dated 23.07.2026. Thus feeling aggrieved, petitioners have approached this Court. 3. It is contended that cancellation order has been passed against a dead person. Learned State Counsel, however, submits that since the allottee violated the terms and conditions of the allotment, therefore, the UKHC010143632026 2026:UHC:7333 allotment was cancelled as per conditions of the allotment order. 4. Learned State Counsel further submits that petitioners were given reasonable opportunity of hearing before cancelling the allotment. He further submits that petitioners have remedy under Clause (3) of allotment order, by invoking arbitration clause, therefore, petitioners can avail the remedy of arbitration, if they have any grievance in the matter. 5. Since there is arbitration clause contained in the allotment order, therefore, writ petition is disposed of with liberty to petitioners to invoke the arbitration clause. 6. For a period of 15 days only, petitioners shall not be dispossessed, if already not dispossessed, from the land in question. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 17.08.2026 Mahinder