Uttarakhand High Court
Unknown vs D.M. U.S. Nagar & Another on 24 February, 2026
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
Office Notes, reports,
orders or proceedings or
SL. No. Date directions and
Registrar's order with
COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
Signatures
WPMS No.435 of 2026
M/s Swarn Kaur
--Petitioner
Versus
D.M. U.S. Nagar & another
--Respondents
With
WPMS No.436, 437, 438, 439, 440 and 441 all of 2026
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
Mr. Harshpal Sekhon, learned counsel for the petitioners.
2. Mr. Anil Dabral, learned Addl. CSC with Mr. Devendra Pant,
learned S.C. and Mr. B.S. Koranga, learned B.H. for the State.
3. Since common questions of facts and law are involved in these
petitions, therefore, these are clubbed together and decided by this
common judgment. However, for the sake of brevity and convenience,
facts of WPMS No.435 of 2026 alone are being considered and
discussed.
4. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, he is a landless
person, who was allotted a piece of agricultural land declared surplus
in proceedings under U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings
Act, 1960, vide order dated 13.01.2006. Grievance raised by petitioner
is that his name is not being recorded in Category 1 kha i.e.
Bhumidhar with non-transferable right.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon Section 131(d) of
Uttarakhand Zamidari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 in
support of his contention that every person, with whom surplus land is
settled, is entitled to be recorded as Bhumidhar with nontransferable
right. Section 131(d) of the aforesaid Statute is quoted below:-
“131. Bhumidhar with nontransferable rights.- (d) with
effect from July 1, 1981 every person with whom surplus land is or
has been settled under 26A or sub-section (3) of Section 27 of the
U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960.”
6. Learned State Counsel, however, refers to the allotment order
issued in favour of petitioner. In the said document, reference is made
to Section 25 of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act,
1960 for making allotment.
7. Learned State Counsel submits that power under Section 25 of
the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 is
available to State Government for using the surplus land for any
purpose for which such land could have been acquired and State can
invoke this power to retain the land for public purpose/construction of
building etc. He further submits that surplus land can be settled in
favour of weaker sections of society only under Section 27(3) of the
Act. Sections 25 and 27(3) of the Act are reproduced below for ready
reference:-
“25. Use of surplus land for other public purposes. – The
State Government may, instead of settling any surplus land in
accordance with the provisions of this Act, use or permit the use either
temporarily or permanently of the whole or any portion of such land
for any purpose for which such land could have been acquired under
the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
27(3) (3) Any remaining surplus land shall be settled by the any
Collector in accordance with the order of preference, and subject to
the limits, specified respectively in 3 subsections (1) and (3) of
Section 198 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land
Reforms Act, 1950.”
8. Learned State Counsel submits that since a wrong provision
was invoked while issuing allotment order in favour of petitioner, due
to that reason difficulty is being faced by Revenue Authorities in
making entry of name of petitioner in the Revenue records. Learned
State Counsel further submits that as per provisions contained in Land
Record Manual, the land declared as surplus under Ceiling Act, is to
be recorded as 4(ka) in Revenue Record and if such land is allotted to
some person, then name of such person is entered as 4(ka)(ka) in the
Revenue Record.
9. Learned counsel for the State further submitted that the writ
petitions WPMS Nos.28 of 2026 and 30 of 2026 involving the same
controversy have been made part heard by a Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court, therefore these writ petitions should also be transferred to the
same Bench.
10. The orders passed by the Co-ordinate Bench have also been
supplied by the State counsel.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioners also relied upon the
judgment and order passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in
WPMS No.3367 of 2025, wherein the petitioners to that writ petition
were granted opportunity to make representation(s) and a direction is
made to decide the representation(s), in accordance with law within a
stipulated period.
12. I have perused the orders passed by both Co-ordinate Bench of
this Court.
13. This Court feels that the orders passed by Hon’ble Justice
Manoj Kumar Tiwari has only directed to decide the representation, in
accordance with law, therefore, this Court is of the opinion that it will
not make any kind of difference, if such order is passed by this Court,
in this batch of writ petitions.
13. The writ petitions are, accordingly, disposed of with liberty to
petitioners to make separate representation(s) /application(s) to
District Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar, for correcting of the
provision invoked for allotting land to them. If such representation(s)
is made within two weeks from today, District Magistrate shall
examine the matter and pass appropriate order, within eight weeks
thereafter. Stake holders, if any, shall also be heard while taking any
decision in the matter.
(Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J.)
24-02-2026
R.Dang
