Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 8611 (UTT)

Kesar Sugar Works Ltd. v. Panna Vinay

2026-01-03

Rakesh Thapliyal

body2026
JUDGMENT : RAKESH THAPLIYAL, J. 1. Today, Mr. Bhupesh Kandpal, learned counsel for respondent no. 6 in WPMS No. 1167 of 2024 and for respondent no. 1 in WPMS No. 997 of 2023 placed before this court the supplementary affidavit, the copy of which in advance is also supplied to the learned counsel for the petitioner in both the petitions and the same are taken on record. 2. Mr. Bhupesh Kandpal submits that there are long standing revenue entries pertains to village Bandia from 1367 fasli to 1374 fasli i.e. from 1951 to 1968, wherein, the name of Jeevan Lal is recorded and these long standing entries were never been challenged. In addition to this, in the supplementary affidavit another document which has been placed before this court is Tax Assessment Register (Form of Tehrij Goshwara Kham), in which also the name of Chhote Lal Kila Chand and Jeevan Lal S/o Chhote Lal are recorded and this assessment register is from the assessment year 1956 fasli onwards. In addition to this, he also bring to the notice of this court the “khataunis” of village Khurpiya, which is enclosed in the counter affidavit filed in WPMS No. 997 of 2023 as Annexure-2 (relevant page 379 onwards), wherein, the name of Jeevan Lal is also recorded. By referring aforesaid revenue record Mr. Kandpal submits that the name of Jeevan Lal was recorded in the revenue records and these are the long standing entries in the revenue record and in these revenue entries Jeevan Lal is not shown to be recorded as representative of Kesar Sugar, which is a company. 3. In addition to this, Mr. Kandpal pointed out that there are two letters of the same date i.e. 17.01.1956 enclosed at page 826 to 829 and another one at page 1831 addressed to the same authorities i.e. Superintendent Kham and one such letter is issued under the signature of one A.H. Dixit, General Manager of Kesar Sugar Works Ltd and another one is under the signature of Jeevan Lal and by referring these two letters he submits that letter enclosed at page 1831 was never been signed by Jeevan Lal and signatures are forged one, which is evident from the contents of paragraph 5 of this letter. 4. Mr. 4. Mr. Kandpal also pointed out that on such an application dated 17.01.1956 the Superintendent Kham passed an order on 25.03.1956 and on the basis of the said order first time in the revenue records the name of Kesar Sugar has been entered through representative Jeevan Lal in the address column. He also submits that infact the order dated 25.03.1956 was never been passed since on that day there was Sunday. 5. Learned counsel for the parties submits that infact the issues of both the petitions relates to the same piece of land, wherein, both the parties claiming their title and ownership, therefore, both the matters be decided together. 6. In WPMS No. 1167 of 2024 the respondent no. 7 to whom Mr. Kandpal is representing raised preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability by filing a short counter affidavit by reserving right to file detail counter affidavit and with regard to the maintainability yesterday he has already advanced his argument that the petitioner of WPMS No. 1167 of 2024 has no locus and furthermore the petitioner’s company is no more in existence and the order impugned is appealable under Order 43(1)(r) of CPC. 7. So far as Writ Petition No. 997 of 2023 is concerned, the preliminary objection is also raised in the counter affidavit that the petition is not maintainable since there is a statutory remedy to file an appeal against the order impugned, which they already preferred, however, on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction the appeal was returned back by order dated 01.04.2023. 8. He submits that infact both the petitions are not maintainable and liable to the dismissed. 9. In response to the argument of Mr. Bhupesh Kandpal Mr. Aditya Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner of WPMS No. 997 of 2023 submits that an alternative remedy/statutory remedy is not an absolute bar in entertaining the writ petition and furthermore the appeal is not the efficacious remedy and since the respondents were adamant to create a third party interest, therefore, this is the only remedy available to the petitioner to invoke Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India and as such the petition is maintainable. 10. 10. Now, in WPMS No. 997 of 2023 an amendment application has been moved by the petitioner i.e. IA No. 02 of 2023, wherein, the respondents filed their objection that the amendment as sought cannot be allowed since the petition itself is not maintainable and furthermore by filing the amendment application the petitioner is changing the nature of original writ petition and trying to create a new cause of action. In the amendment application the petitioner praying for incorporation of some additional relief particularly praying for quashing of the order dated 13.10.2023 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (S.D.), Udham Singh Nagar in O.S. No. 49 of 2023, which is infact is a proceeding in which the order impugned was passed, which was challenged at the time of filing of this petition. 11. At this juncture some facts are very relevant that Writ petition No. 997 of 2023 was filed on 03.04.2023 and it came up before the Bench on 10.04.2023 and then posted on 24.04.2023 but due to paucity of time the matter could not be taken up and the matter is ordered to be listed on 01.05.2023 and on 01.05.2023 the Coordinate Bench directed to list this matter before another Bench and then the matter is nominated to this Bench and came up for hearing on 04.05.2023 and on that day Mr. Bhupesh Kandpal, learned counsel for respondent no. 1, undertakes that no third party interest will be created by respondent no. 1 in respect of the land in question and thereafter the matter was heard on different dates and on 11.08.2023 Mr. Amit Sibbal, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, apprise to this court that before filing the instant petition six gift deeds and two sale deeds were executed by respondent no. 1 in favour of third party and these transfer were made infact before filing the Suit bearing O.S. No. 49 of 2023 and have been challenged by the petitioner before the civil court. 12. In the meantime, what has happened, the respondent no. 1 in favour of third party and these transfer were made infact before filing the Suit bearing O.S. No. 49 of 2023 and have been challenged by the petitioner before the civil court. 12. In the meantime, what has happened, the respondent no. 1 with the assistance of the police officials took possession of the property, which infact was gifted and sold out to the third party and after taking over the possession the Original Suit bearing O.S. No. 49 of 2023 was withdrawn on 13.10.2023 though the petitioner being defendant, raised an objection that the matter is pending in the High Court, despite this the Trial Court permitted to withdraw the suit on the ground that the plaintiff is the master of the suit, therefore, he cannot be restrain from withdrawing the suit. 13. Now, being aggrieved with the order by which the respondent no. 1 was permitted to withdraw the suit the aforesaid amendment application has been moved. The respondent filed a detailed objection by saying that even the order permitting to withdraw the suit is revisable order, therefore, the amendment as sought is not permissible. 14. Be that as it may, no doubt the petition was filed before withdrawing the suit and the order impugned in the petition was an interim order passed by the Trial Court in O.S. No. 49 of 2023 and if the amendment is not allowed then in such an eventuality, the writ petition is almost become infructuous since the original suit bearing O.S. No. 49 of 2023 was permitted to be withdrawn. Since, this matter was heard on different dates at length and the core issue, which is involved in this petition, is that who is the actual owner of the land in question, whether the petitioner or the respondent no. 1. Learned counsel for both the parties fairly submits that the core issue as involved in this petition is only to that extent. 15. In such an eventuality, to examine who is the actual owner, this court is of the view that in the interest of justice the amendment as sought by the petition has to be allowed. Accordingly, amendment application i.e. IA No. 02 of 2023 is allowed. 15. In such an eventuality, to examine who is the actual owner, this court is of the view that in the interest of justice the amendment as sought by the petition has to be allowed. Accordingly, amendment application i.e. IA No. 02 of 2023 is allowed. Let the necessary amendment be carried out in the body of the petition as well as in the relief clause within a week and the amended copy of petition be filed within one week thereafter. 16. Let the respondents may file their counter affidavit positively within six weeks in both the petition. Two weeks’ time thereafter is also granted to the petitioner to file rejoinder affidavit. 17. At this juncture Mr. Pradeep Hairiya, learned Standing Counsel pointed out that as per the rejoinder affidavit of the petitioner in WPMS No. 1167 of 2024 the land appears to be a Government land and granted lease under the Government Grants Act. He has referred letter dated 27.08.1936, which is at page 569 to 572 of the paper book written on behalf of Kesar Sugar Works Ltd. and the relevant extract is read as under: “(2) on Lease Terms C.2 of the T.& B. Estates revised rules of 1935 on the conditions that the lease will not be less than 30 years with our option for renewing the same for another period of 30 years on such assessment terms as may be applicable at that time to the surrounding locality. We beg to emphasise that in the case of this lease also we shall require all rights of transfer as the absence of these rights will deter us from investing on permanent buildings and other improvements on the farm land. If these terms can be met in a lease given to a corporation like the Kesar Sugar Works Ltd., we shall be prepared to take it in the name of the Company.” 18. To examine whether in respect of the land in question the lease was given by the Government under the Government Grants Act or under any statutory Act, this court is of the view that the state should be a contesting respondent. The State is already arrayed as respondent in WPMS No. 1167 of 2024 but in WPMS No. 997 of 2023 the State is not the party respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. The State is already arrayed as respondent in WPMS No. 1167 of 2024 but in WPMS No. 997 of 2023 the State is not the party respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Aditya Singh is directed to implead the State as the party respondent during the course of day. In such view of the matter let the State may also file a short affidavit in this regard. 19. List this matter on 17.03.2026. 20. The interim orders passed in WPMS No. 997 of 2023 as well as WPMS No. 1167 of 2024 shall continue till the next date of listing. 21. On the next date all the parties are directed to prepare two page synopsis for argument.