Karnail Singh And Others … vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 26 February, 2026
inkinccorporation@gmail.com Uttarakhand High Court
Karnail Singh And Others … vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 26 February, 2026
2026:UHC:1379-DB
Judgment Reserved on:17.02.2026
Judgment Delivered on :26.02.2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA
AND
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MR. SUBHASH UPADHYAY
Special Appeal No.355 of 2025
Karnail Singh and Others -----Appellants
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Others ----Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Siddhartha Singh, learned counsel for the appellants.
Mr. Yogesh Chandra Tewari, learned Standing Counsel for the
State of Uttarakhand.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT :
(per Mr. Subhash Upadhyay J.)
1. By the present intra-court appeal, the
appellants have assailed the judgment and order dated
08.10.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in
WPMS No.2056 of 2023 whereby writ petition filed by
the appellants/petitioners was dismissed.
2. The appellants claimed benefit of the
Government Order dated 18.07.2016 issued by the
State Government for regularization of certain category
of unauthorized occupants over the public land
recorded in revenue record as Class-IV Category. The
appellants had filed an application before the District
Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar for regularization of
1
2026:UHC:1379-DB
the land comprising in Khasra No.448/1/1 and Khasra
No.448/3 admeasuring 4.018 hectare situated in
Village Khairna, Tehsil Sitarganj.
3. On the said application, a report was called
by the District Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar from the
Sub-Divisional Magistrate (S.D.M.), who stated that the
land in question, sought to be regularized by the
petitioners/appellants, is a water body, therefore, the
benefit of Government Order dated 18.07.2016 cannot
be given in view of Section 132 of the U.P. Zamindari
Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950 (for Short “U.P.
Z.A. & L.R. Act“).
4. Against the said decision, the petitioners filed
the writ petition which was dismissed on 08.10.2025
and the said order is under challenge in the present
appeal.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits
that the land in occupation of the appellants is not a
water body and the report submitted to the said effect
by the authorities is factually incorrect. He refers to the
stand taken by the respondents in the counter affidavit
filed in the writ petition and contends that, as per the
averment made in the counter affidavit, the land is a
river side land and as such the provisions of Section
132 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 are not applicable.
2
2026:UHC:1379-DB
6. We had repeatedly asked the learned counsel
for the appellants to demonstrate through any
document the status of his land, however, learned
counsel for the appellants could not demonstrate any
document and placed reliance on a sarzra map to
contend that the land is not a riverbed land but a river
side land.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the State
submits that a detail counter affidavit was filed before
the writ court wherein it was specified that the
Government Order dated 18.07.2016, the benefit of
which was claimed by the appellants, itself clarified that
the land falling under Section 132 of the U.P. Z.A. &
L.R. Act, 1950 would not be regularized.
8. He further submits that vide order dated
12.07.2021 and 20.04.2023 the District Magistrate,
Udham Singh Nagar disposed of the application filed by
the appellants by a comprehensive and detailed order
on the basis of the fact finding report submitted by the
authorities.
9. We have heard learned counsel for the
parties and perused the record.
10. The Government Order dated 18.07.2016
clearly specifies that the land covered under Section
132 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 would not be
3
2026:UHC:1379-DB
regularized. It further clarified that, in case a person is
in unauthorized occupation of such land covered Under
Section 132 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 then the
said person would first be evicted and only then his
case for regularization of other category-IV land would
be considered.
11. Sub-clause (1) and (2) of Clause-3 of the
said Government Order dated 18.07.2016 reads as
under:
“¼1½ tehankjh fouk’k ,oa Hkwfe O;oLFkk vf/kfu;e 1950 ¼mÙkjk[k.M esa ;Fkkço`Ùk½ dh
/kkjk&132- ds vUrxZr vkus okyh Hkwfe ¼lkoZtfud mi;ksx tSls pdekxZ] ewy]
[kfygku] dfczLrku] ‘ke’kku?kkV] pkjkxkg vkfn½ dk fofu;ferhdj.k ugha fd;k
tk;sxkA
¼2½ tehankjh fouk’k ,oa Hkwfe O;oLFkk vf/kfu;e] 1950 ¼mÙkjk[k.M esa ;Fkkço`Ùk½ dh
/kkjk&132 ds vUrxZr vkus okyh Hkwfe ¼lkoZtfud mi;ksx tSls pdekxZ] ewy]
[kfygku] dfczLrku] ‘ke’kku?kkV] pkjkxkg vkfn½ ij ;fn voS/k dCtk ik;k tkrk gS
rks mls igys [kkyh djk;k tk;sxk vkSj rc ml v/;klh @ iêsnkj dh vU; oxZ&4
dh Hkwfe dk fofu;ferhdj.k fd;k tk;sxkA”
12. The order dated 12.07.2021 categorically
mentions that the land in occupation of the appellants
is not fit for regularization. The appellants made an
application against the decision dated 12.07.2021 for
re-examination of the issue and again the S.D.M. was
asked to submit the report.
13. Further report of the S.D.M. again recorded in
clear terms that land sought to be regularized is a
riverbed land recorded as Category-15(4) in revenue
records and cannot be regularized.
4
2026:UHC:1379-DB
14. Learned Single Judge has dealt with the said
aspect in detail in paragraph nos. 7, 9, 12, 14, 15 and
16 which read as under:
“7. Perusal of the report dated 12.07.2021
(Annexure-1 to the writ petition) reveals that Sub
Divisional Magistrate, Khatima (Udham Singh Nagar)
in his earlier report dated 07.12.2019 mentioned that
the land in question is not fit for agriculture due to
sand/ silt deposit. This report was accepted by the
District Magistrate on 12.07.2021 and application
made by petitioners for regularization was rejected.
Petitioners thereafter made request to District
Magistrate to get the land re-inspected. On their
request, District Magistrate again asked the Sub
Divisional Magistrate to submit a report. The Sub
Divisional Magistrate in his report reiterated that the
land sought to be regularized is riverbed land,
recorded as Category-15 (4) in revenue record,
therefore, it cannot be regularized in view of
prohibition contained in Section 132 of Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Act.
9. Learned State Counsel submits that in view of
provision contained in Section 132 of Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Act and also in view of
the law declared by Hon’ble Supreme Court in catena
of judgments, bhumidhari right cannot be given to
anybody over riverbed/water body land. He further
submits that petitioners have not indicated the
extent/size of their land holding in the writ petition;
unless they meet the eligibility conditions, they
cannot claim regularization of their unauthorized
occupation. Learned State Counsel by referring to the
first report submitted by Sub Divisional Magistrate
contained in Annexure-1 submits that earlier also,
petitioners had applied in the year 2019 for
regularization of their possession and the said
application was also rejected by District Magistrate
on 04.01.2020.
12. Bhumidhari right cannot be given over water
body land, as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of Hinch Lal Tiwari v. Kamala Devi and others,
reported as (2001) 6 SCC 496. Paragraph nos. 13 &
14 of the said judgment is reproduced below:
“13. It is important to notice that the material
resources of the community like forests, tanks,
ponds, hillock, mountain etc. are nature’s
bounty. They maintain delicate ecological
balance. They need to be protected for a
proper and healthy environment which enables
people to enjoy a quality life which is the
essence of the guaranteed right under Article
5
2026:UHC:1379-DB
21 of the Constitution. The Government,
including the Revenue Authorities i.e.
Respondents 11 to 13, having noticed that a
pond is falling in disuse, should have bestowed
their attention to develop the same which
would, on one hand, have prevented ecological
disaster and on the other provided better
environment for the benefit of the public at
large. Such vigil is the best protection against
knavish attempts to seek allotment in non-
abadi sites.
14. For the aforementioned reasons, we set
aside the order of the High Court, restore the
order of the Additional Collector dated 25-2-
1999 confirmed by the Commissioner on 12-3-
1999. Consequently, Respondents 1 to 10 shall
vacate the land, which was allotted to them,
within six months from today. They will,
however, be permitted to take away the
material of the houses which they have
constructed on the said land. If Respondents 1
to 10 do not vacate the land within the said
period the official respondents i.e. Respondents
11 to 13 shall demolish the construction and
get possession of the said land in accordance
with law. The State including Respondents 11
to 13 shall restore the pond, develop and
maintain the same as a recreational spot which
will undoubtedly be in the best interest of the
villagers. Further it will also help in maintaining
ecological balance and protecting the
environment in regard to which this Court has
repeatedly expressed its concern. Such
measures must begin at the grassroot level if
they were to become the nation’s pride.”
14. Petitioners question correctness of the report
submitted by Sub Divisional Magistrate, however this
Court do not find any inconsistency in the reports
submitted by Sub Divisional Magistrate from time to
time. Even otherwise also, issue of correctness of
reports, cannot be gone into in proceedings under
Article 226 of the Constitution.
15. This Court while exercising writ jurisdiction does
not act as Court of Appeal. Scope of judicial review of
administrative action is limited to examining the
legality and fairness of the decision making process.
In the case of Punjab State Power Corporation
Limited and another v. Emta Coal Limited, reported
as (2022) 2 SCC 1, Hon’ble Supreme Court has
summarized the legal position on scope of judicial
review in paragraph nos. 33 to 37, which are
reproduced below:-
“33. It could thus be seen that while
exercising powers of judicial review, the Court
is not concerned with the ultimate decision but
6
2026:UHC:1379-DB
the decision-making process. The limited areas
in which the Court can enquire are as to
whether a decision-making authority has
exceeded its powers, committed an error of law
or committed breach of principle of natural
justice. It can examine as to whether an
authority has reached a decision which no
reasonable tribunal would have reached or has
abused its powers. It is not for the Court to
determine whether a particular policy or a
particular decision taken in the fulfilment of
that policy is fair. The Court will examine as to
whether the decision of an authority is vitiated
by illegality, irrationality or procedural
impropriety. While examining the question of
irrationality, the Court will be guided by the
principle of Wednesbury. While applying the
Wednesbury principle, the Court will examine
as to whether the decision of an authority is
such that no authority properly directing itself
on the relevant law and acting reasonably
could have reached it.
34. Applying the aforesaid principle, it can
clearly be seen that the decision of PSPCL
dated 6-4-2018, cannot be questioned on the
ground of illegality or procedural impropriety.
The decision is taken in accordance with
Section 11 of the said Act and after following
the principle of natural justice. The limited area
that would be available for attack is as to
whether the decision is hit by the Wednesbury
principle. Can it be said that the decision taken
by the authority is such that no reasonable
person would have taken it? No doubt, that the
authority has also relied on Clause 12.4.1 of
the Allotment Agreement, however, that is not
the only ground on which the representation of
EMTA is rejected. No doubt, that while
considering EMTA’s representation, PSPCL has
referred to Clause 12.4.1 of the Allotment
Agreement which requires the coal mines to be
developed through contractors who were
selected through a competitive bidding process,
however, that is not the only ground on which
the representation of EMTA is rejected. It will
be relevant to refer to the following
observations in the order passed by PSPCL
dated 6-4-2018:
“Moreover, there is no reason why
competitive bidding process for the
purposes of eliciting the best operator be
not preferred. Needless to mention that
as the composition with respect to
capital/revenue investment is altogether
different, hence the bidding parameters
have entirely changed.”
35. It could thus be seen that PSPCL has
decided to go in for competitive bidding
7
2026:UHC:1379-DB
process for the purpose of eliciting the best
operator. It has further noticed that the
composition with respect to capital/revenue
investment is altogether different. Hence, the
bidding parameters have entirely changed. It
has further referred to the decision of this
Court wherein it has been held that the
allotment should be through competitive
bidding process. We ask a question to
ourselves, as to whether the said reasoning can
be said to be irrational or arbitrary. A policy
decision to get the best operator at the best
price, cannot be said to be a decision which no
reasonable person would take in his affairs. In
that view of the matter, the attack on the
order/letter dated 6-4-2018, is without merit.
36. Insofar as the contention of Shri Rohatgi
with regard to the huge investment being made
by EMTA is concerned, the said Act itself
provides remedy for seeking compensation
apart from the other remedies that are
available in law. In that view of the matter, we
are not impressed with the arguments
advanced in that behalf.
37. In the result, the impugned judgment and
order passed by the High Court of Punjab and
Haryana is unsustainable in law. The appeals
are therefore allowed and the judgment and
order passed by the High Court of Punjab and
Haryana dated 25-1-2019, is quashed and set
aside. Pending IA(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of accordingly.”
16. In view of the aforesaid legal position, this
Court do not find any reason to interfere with the
decision taken by District Magistrate on the request
made by petitioners for regularization of their
unauthorized occupation over public land. In view of
provision contained in Section 132 of Zamindari
Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950, bhumidhari right
in respect of public utility land/water body cannot be
conferred upon any person. The decision taken by
the District Magistrate is based on factual reports
submitted by Sub Divisional Magistrate and
correctness of the report cannot be gone in writ
proceedings.”
15. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Hinch
Lal Tiwari vs Kamala Devi And Ors reported in
(2001) 6 SCC 496 held that the material resources of
the community like forests, tanks, ponds, hillock,
8
2026:UHC:1379-DB
mountain etc. are nature’s bounty. They maintain
delicate ecological balance. They need to be protected
for a proper and healthy environment which enables
people to enjoy a quality life which is the essence of
the guaranteed right under Article 21 of the
Constitution.
16. The rejection of the claim of the appellants is
based on cogent reasons as the fact finding authority
has clearly recorded a finding that the land in
occupation of the appellant is a riverbed land and the
same cannot be regularized.
17. In view of the above discussion, we find no
good ground to interfere with the order passed by the
learned Single Judge. The special appeal fails and,
accordingly, the same is dismissed.
18. Pending application, if any, also stands
disposed of.
(MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, C. J.)
(SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.)
Dated:26.02.2026
SS
SUKHBANT
Digitally signed by SUKHBANT SINGH
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH
COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=71978f9c61bfde0ba69967c787b1764ea7bc7dd129
a8a6380d49b1885e628615, postalCode=263001,
SINGH
st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=2D8B71B8D8E345F6B7F95B1DD4FB4BEBD2B
7D72C42261361AED33172F152148D, cn=SUKHBANT SINGH
Date: 2026.02.27 10:15:43 +05’30’
9
