2026:UHC:3714-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA AND THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MR. SUBHASH UPADHYAY Writ Petition (PIL) No.64 of 2026 14th May, 2026 Vijay Pal -----Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and Others ----Respondents ----------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Anuj Kumar Tyagi, learned counsel for the petitioner through V.C. Mr. Amarendra Pratap Singh, learned Addl. Advocate General for the State of Uttarakhand/ respondent nos.1 to 3. Ms. Anjali Bhargava, learned counsel for respondent no.4. ----------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT : (per Mr. Manoj Kumar Gupta C. J.) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The present writ petition has been filed ostensibly in public interest praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent-authorities to remove the possession of respondent no.7 and 8 from certain land said to be recorded as pond in consolidation records of 2009-10. 3. It is alleged that the said land was initially wrongly transferred in favour of respondent no.5 and, thereafter, respondent no.6, who is Power of Attorney holder of respondent no.5, had illegally transferred it in favour of respondent nos.7 and 8. 4. Perusal of the averments made in paragraph no.9 of the writ petition reveals that before transfer permission from Collector was obtained under provisions 1 2026:UHC:3714-DB of Section 157A of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950 (for short ‘UPZA&LR Act). The sale deeds are of the year 2001 and 2003 and it also appears that various proceedings in relation to the land were held before the Consolidation Authorities but the correct details of none of these proceedings have been given. 5. The person who had initially sold the property to respondent no.5 is not party to the present proceedings. In the present jurisdiction, we are not inclined to examine the validity of the sales held long back. In case there is any grievance left, it is always open to the petitioner to move an appropriate application before the concerned authority so that the proceedings are held in accordance with law. 6. With the aforesaid liberty reserved to the petitioner, the writ petition is dismissed. 7. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of. (MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, C. J.) (SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.) Dated: 14.05.2026 SS 2