UKHC010014902018 2026:UHC:6098 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPMS/1893/2018 Gurdayal Singh --Petitioner Versus State Of Uttarakhand Thorugh Secretary Revenue Dehradun --Respondent Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J 1. None present for the petitioners. 2. Mr. S.K. Nailwal, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. 3. According to petitioners, plots of land were allotted to them under provisions of Government Grant Act and their name is recorded in Category 1B in Revenue Record. 4. By means of this writ petition, petitioner has sought the following relief:- (i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to the respondent no. 3 to finally decide the application of the (which is Annexure No. 1 (Colly) to this writ petition) expeditiously, preferably within four weeks or within such time, which the Hon’ble Court deem fit and proper in the interest of justice. 5. Learned State Counsel has drawn attention of the Court to para 9 and 10 of the counter affidavit, filed by Ms. Yukta Mishra, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar, which are extracted below:- UKHC010014902018 2026:UHC:6098 “9. That it is submitted that the petitioner has annexed the Government Order dated 27.07.2016 with the writ petition, paragraph-1 of the aforesaid Government Order clearly provides that the lease which has been granted before 30 years or more than 30 years from the date 1.62016 and is being used for the same purpose for which the lease deed was granted. It is also relevant to mention here that as per the Government Order aforementioned the cut of date is 1.6.2016 and before this date the person who is claiming freehold of the land should have possessed atleast 30 years possession over the land. 10. That it is stated here that the name of the petitioner is entered in the revenue record in the fasli year 1400 (1992-1993), therefore, the petitioner do not fulfil the conditions of the aforesaid Government Order and as such he is not entitled to get the benefit of the aforesaid Government order dated 27.7.2016.” 6. No rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the petitioner, therefore, the averments made in para 9 and 10 of the counter affidavit has to be treated as correct. 7. Since petitioner does not meet the requirement of the condition of eligibility, as mentioned in the Government Policy, therefore, the relief, as claimed, cannot be granted. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J) 20.07.2026 Aswal NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL Digitally signed by NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=eacc6757ee7881e933ff8934f07477005aa85f9802a3 a08b08d1369512ea30f3, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=44EB54CBF00B7698CB6F10C2CE3D26F5C22D ACF4F4610C1FE58A58531726FBB0, cn=NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL Date: 2026.07.20 06:55:02 -07'00'