2026:UHC:279-DB 1 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Special Appeal No. 395 of 2025 7th January, 2026 Savita …………Petitioner Versus State Of Uttarakhand and Others ……..Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Sahil Mullick, learned counsel for the appellant. Mr. Yogesh Tiwari, learned Addl. C.S.C. for the State. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram: Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J. Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) The instant appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 30.10.2025 passed in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2919 of 2025 Ms. Savita v. State of Uttarakhand, whereby the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition granting liberty to the petitioner to submit her reply to the show cause notice. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. The appellant, by filing the writ petition, had challenged a notice issued under Section 6 of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960, whereby she was called upon to show cause as to why the land gifted to her by Mr. Deep Chand Agarwal should not be vested in the State free from all encumbrances. The writ court observed that no legal injury had yet been caused to the petitioner and that she had an adequate opportunity to put forth her case before the competent authority, therefore, interference is not called for. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit 2026:UHC:279-DB 2 that there is multiple piece of land in the vicinity, some of which are the subject matter of WPPIL No. 88 of 2022, and therefore prayed that the present appeal be tagged with the said public interest litigation. 5. In the instant case, the appellant has come with a specific case that she has been served with a notice requiring her to explain as to why the land, which was gifted to her, should not be vested in the State. The learned Single Judge has rightly held that the appellant has an opportunity to submit her explanation before the competent authority, which is required to take a decision in accordance with law. It is not the case of the appellant that the authority lacks jurisdiction or that the proceedings are otherwise vitiated in the eyes of law. 6. In view of the above, this Court is of the view the learned Single Judge has rightly held that no interference in the exercise of writ jurisdiction is warranted at this stage. 7. As regards the prayer for tagging the present appeal with WPPIL No. 88 of 2022, this Court finds no justification for the same, as the appellant has approached the Court with a specific individual grievance. 8. The appeal, therefore, fails and is accordingly dismissed. 9. No order as to costs. (Alok Mahra, J.) (Ravindra Maithani, J.) 07.01.2026 07.01.2026 Mamta