Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 5479 (UTT)

SUNIL KUMAR v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

WPMS/1435/2026 · 2026-05-19

Manoj Kumar Tiwari

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2026:UHC:3891 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS W PMS/ 1 4 3 5 / 2 0 2 6 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Mr. Vishwa Prakash Bahuguna, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Suyash Pant, Standing Counsel for the State. 2. According to petitioner, he purchased a piece of land admeasuring 0.408 hectare in a public auction held in 1998. The said land is situate in village Miyawala, pargana pachwadoon, District Dehradun. 3. It is further the case of the petitioner that his name was mutated in revenue record in category- 3; State Government issued a Notification on 06.04.2016 providing for grant of transferrable bhumidhari rights over category-3 land and petitioner applied for such rights by making application before District Magistrate, Dehradun. 4. The grievance raised by petitioner is that even though the application was made by him on 20.03.2017, but no decision has been taken thereupon so far. 5. In this writ petition, petitioner has sought a direction to the authorities to consider and decide his application for regularisation/conferment of transferrable bhumidhari rights in respect of the land which was purchased by him in public auction. 2026:UHC:3891 6. Learned State Counsel, however, submits that there is no vested right available to the petitioner for grant of transferrable bhumidhari rights. He further submits that petitioner’s case is not covered by Government Order dated 06.04.2016, and further that the window period opened by government order is not available any more. He submits that petitioner is relying upon a government order for claiming bhumidhari rights which is governed by provisions of Zamnidari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. Learned State Counsel further submits that government order dated 06.04.2016 relied upon by petitioner is not enclosed with the writ petition. 7. He submits that the land in question is situate at Miyawala, which is less than 8 kilometers away from Dehradun city, and petitioner is claiming transferrable bhumidhari rights so that he may use the land for commercial purpose, as the prices of land in that locality have increased manifold during last one decade. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, refers to letter issued by District Magistrate, Dehradun to Secretary, Revenue, whereby guidance of the State Government was sought in the matter. He submits that Additional Secretary, Revenue Department had asked the District Magistrate to take necessary action as per Government orders dated 22.07.2016, 19.02.2018 2026:UHC:3891 and 02.11.2020. He submits that the delay caused in the matter by District Magistrate is, therefore, without any valid reason. 9. Learned State Counsel submits that having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be just and proper to direct District Magistrate to take decision on the application submitted by petitioner, but only after obtaining concurrence from State Government. 10. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of with direction to the District Magistrate to examine whether petitioner’s application for grant of transferrable bhumidhari rights over the land in question is still pending, and if that application is still pending, then District Magistrate shall refer the matter to Secretary, Revenue for guidance on the following aspects: (i) Whether a tenure-holder recorded in category-3 in revenue record is eligible for grant of transferrable bhumidhari rights in terms of Government Order dated 06.04.2016 and/or Government Orders issued on subsequent dates? (ii) Whether any window period was provided under the Government Orders issued from time to time for conferment of transferrable bhumidhari rights to persons found in possession over category-3 land? (iii) Whether petitioner had applied within that window period? 2026:UHC:3891 (iv) Whether the window period, if any, opened for conferment of transferrable bhumidhari rights is still available for the purpose? (v) Whether petitioner meets all conditions of eligibility in terms of Government Policy for conferment of transferrable bhumidhari rights over the land in question which was purchased by him in a public auction? 11. The Secretary, Revenue, after examining all relevant aspects shall issue necessary instructions regarding course of action to be taken in the matter, to the District Magistrate within six months from date the matter is referred to Secretary, Revenue. 12. Based on instructions issued by Secretary, Revenue, District Magistrate shall pass appropriate order on the application of petitioner within six weeks from date of receipt of instructions. 13. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 19.05.2026 Mahinder/