Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2074 DAILYLAW 1 (UTT)

SANJEEV KUMAR v. UNION OF INDIA

WPMS/2074/2026 · 2026-07-27

Manoj Kumar Tiwari

body2074

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

UKHC010119162026 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPMS/2074/2026 Sanjeev Kumar and another --Petitioners Versus Union of India and others --Respondents Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Mr. Faizan Ali, Advocate, holding brief of Mohd. Safdar, Advocate for the petitioners. 2. Mr. Rajesh Pandey, Standing Counsel for the Union of India/ respondent no. 1. 3. Mr. K.S. Mehta, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand/ respondent nos. 2 to 6. 4. According to petitioners, a bridge is being constructed over their land situate at Village Malakpur Latifpur, Pargana and Tehsil Roorkee, District Haridwar without paying them any compensation or without acquiring their land. 5. Learned State Counsel, however, refers to the Annual Khatauni, which is enclosed at page no. 27 of the writ petition. Based on the said document, he submits that land comprised in Khasra No. 34/4 ka, admeasuring 1.181 hectare is recorded as water body land. 6. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that the land is non-Z.A. land; while, learned State Counsel submits UKHC010119162026 that land is governed by provisions of Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. 7. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that petitioners were paid compensation when another bridge was constructed over the land in 1975. 8. Learned State Counsel submits that the said bridge was constructed on a different khewat i.e. khewat no. 3. 9. Without going into the issues raised by learned counsel for the parties, this Court thinks that ends of justice would be met, if District Magistrate is directed to take decision on petitioners’ representation dated 31.05.2026. 10. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of with a direction to District Magistrate to take decision on petitioners’ representation dated 31.05.2026, as per law, within nine months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order. It goes without saying that while taking decision on petitioners’ representation, District Magistrate shall hear all the stakeholders. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 27.07.2026 Navin NAVEEN CHANDRA Digitally signed by NAVEEN CHANDRA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3be23325146e76a0642bdf4943fb9046f487df006da82a131bb4e4403d3c0a15, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=18167EEFB5CA8CFFD421A103819DA875643AF56D653D095C6ED9A86DA AB21CE5, cn=NAVEEN CHANDRA Date: 2026.07.27 17:33:44 +05'30'