Uttarakhand High Court
Yukti Construction Pvt. Ltd vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others on 20 April, 2026
Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT
NAINITAL
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 93 of 2024
Yukti Construction Pvt. Ltd. ... Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & Others ... Respondents
Mr. Deepak Dhingra, Mr. Aditya Singh & Mr. B.S. Kathayat,
Advocates for the petitioner.
Mr. Pradeep Hariya, Additional Chief Standing Counsel with Mr.
Sushil Vashistha, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand.
Mr. Sandeep Kothari, Advocate for respondent no.4.
ORDER
Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
Miscellaneous Application (IA No. 19662 of 2025)
This application has been filed by petitioner
seeking injunction prohibiting the respondents from
selling or parting with possession of the land in
question or otherwise encumbering the land, which is
subject matter of the writ petition.
2. Learned counsel for the respondents submit
that similar prayer for interim relief, made by
petitioner was considered and rejected by learned
Single Judge of this Court, vide order dated
24.09.2014, and Special Appeal No. 571 of 2014 filed
by appellant against the said order was also
dismissed, therefore, subsequent application for
identical relief would not be maintainable.
3. Learned State counsel refers to the relief
clause of the writ petition for contending that
1
petitioner has challenged the notification dated
21.09.1987, issued under Section 4 of Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 and also the notification dated
30.01.1988, issued under Section 6 of the said Act
and the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Dehradun
gave his award on 19.02.1990, as mentioned in
paragraph no. 3 of the writ petition, therefore, there
is no good ground for granting the interim protection,
as claimed by the petitioner. The reliefs sought in the
writ petition are extracted below, for ready
reference:-
“(i) issue a suitable writ, order or direction in
the nature of certiorari quashing the notifications
under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act
were issued on 21.09.1987 and 30.01.1988
(Annexure P-1)
(ii) issue a suitable writ, order or direction in
the nature of certiorari quashing the orders of the
Collector/District Magistrate, Dehradun, dated
11.03.2013 and 22.04.2013 (Annexure nos. 17 & 16
respectively, to this writ petition);
(ii) Issue a suitable writ, order or direction in
the nature of mandamus directing the respondents
not to dispossess the petitioner from plots bearing
Khewat No.1 and Khasras included in it situated in
village Rikholi, Pargana Pachwadun, Tehsil and
District Dehradun, having total area of 187.4890
hectares equivalent to 491 Acres.”
4. Learned State Counsel, by referring to the
averment made in paragraph no. 6 of the writ
petition submits that petitioner claims to have
purchased 491 acres land at Rikholi Village in
Mussoorie, District Dehradun by means of separate
sale deeds between 2007-2010. He submits that
since the land is vested in the State Government as
per provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894,
therefore, the sale deeds executed in favour of
2
petitioner on subsequent dates, as mentioned in
paragraph no. 6 of the writ petition, would not
convey any title to the petitioner.
5. This Court finds substance in the contention
raised by learned counsel for the respondents. Since
similar prayer made by petitioner earlier was rejected
by this Court on 24.09.2014 and the rejection order
was affirmed in appeal by Division Bench of this
Court, vide order dated 10.03.2015, therefore,
petitioner is not entitled to any protection, as sought
in this application.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not
point out any imminent threat to the property in
question, which may warrant passing of interim order
for protecting it. Petitioner has challenged the
notifications issued under Sections 4 & 6 of Land
Acquisition Act, 1894, which indicates that the land in
dispute was subjected to acquisition proceedings. The
acquisition proceedings concluded in the year 1990 as
per pleading made in the writ petition and the
acquired land came to be vested in the State
Government, which is now continuing in possession
over the land in question, as held by this Court in its
order dated 24.09.2014. It is well settled that
injunction cannot be granted against the true owner
of property (Premji Ratansey Shah v. Union of India,
reported as (1994) 5 SCC 547). Petitioner is yet to
prove his right or title over the land in question,
therefore, at his instance, State Authorities cannot be
prevented from using the land for a public purpose.
3
7. For the aforesaid reasons, Misc. Application,
seeking injunction filed by petitioner, is rejected.
Delay Condonation Application (IA No. 19661 of 2025)
Review Application (IA No. 19663 of 2025)
8. As per office report, there is delay of 6
years, 8 months and 13 days in filing application
seeking review of orders dated 05.12.2018 and
06.12.2018.
9. For the reasons indicated and in the interest
of justice, delay condonation application is allowed
and delay in filing the review application is condoned.
10. Operative portion of the order dated
05.12.2018 is reproduced below:-
“11. Mr. S.S. Yadav shall also explain why he
has filed such false affidavit and Mr. Deepak Dhingra,
Advocate shall explain why he has clandestinely
drafted the applications and projected Mr. Bharose
Lal as retired Judge of the High Court.”
11. Operative portion of the order dated
06.12.2018 is reproduced below:-
“The report submitted by Mr. Bharose Lal, Advocate
Commissioner, who had been appointed at the
instance of the petitioner, cannot be considered as
an independent Advocate Commissioner. Learned
counsel for the petitioner company would submit that
he is not willing to place reliance on the report of Mr.
Bharose Lal, Advocate Commissioner and the same
may be rejected. With the consent of the parties, the
report dated 19.08.2017 of Mr. Bharose Lal,
Advocate Commissioner, is hereby rejected.”
12. Perusal of the order dated 05.12.2018
reveals that there is neither any finding nor
observation made by the Court, which would
prejudice claim of the petitioner/review applicant for
title over the land in question. By the said order,
4
representatives of the petitioner were asked to give
an explanation as to why they misrepresented facts
before coordinate Bench, which led to passing of
order dated 28.03.2016.
13. Careful perusal of the order dated
06.12.2018 would reveal that the report submitted by
Mr. Bharose Lal was rejected by this Court, in view of
submission made by learned counsel for the
petitioner that he is not willing to place reliance on
that report. Perusal of order dated 06.12.2018
further reveals that report submitted by Mr. Bharose
Lal was rejected with the consent of parties.
14. Learned counsel for the respondents are
therefore right in submitting that an order passed
with consent of parties cannot be reviewed on the
asking of a party, which had consented to passing of
that order.
15. Learned counsel for the review applicant
contends that petitioner’s counsel never consented
for setting aside the report submitted by Mr. Bharose
Lal, therefore, the order dated 06.12.2018 is liable to
be reviewed.
16. Learned counsel for the respondents,
however, submit that the application seeking review
is filed after nearly seven years and if what the
petitioner/review applicant states is correct, then he
should have filed application seeking review of the
order dated 06.12.2018 in the year 2018, but this
application is filed in 2025.
5
17. Learned counsel appearing for respondent
no. 4 refers to paragraph no. 11 of the Misc.
Application No. 19659 of 2018 filed by petitioner,
where it is mentioned that this Court while rejecting
the report submitted by Mr. Bharose Lal, made
observation regarding appointment of fresh Advocate
Commissioner. Learned counsel for respondent no. 4
points out that by that application, petitioner prayed
for appointing any person as the Hon’ble Court finds
suitable as Advocate Commissioner for submitting a
report concerning the issues as mentioned in
paragraph no. 9 of the application.
18. Learned State Counsel points out that Misc.
Application No. 19659 of 2018 was filed by the
petitioner in the Registry of this Court on 18.12.2018.
Thus, he submits that petitioner had no grievance
against rejection of report of Mr. Bharose Lal,
consequently, instead of seeking recall/review of the
order dated 06.12.2018, petitioner chose to file
application for appointing another Advocate
Commissioner. Thus, it is contended that petitioner
cannot now be permitted to resile from the stand,
which he took earlier, by his conduct.
19. Learned counsel for respondent no. 4
submits that filing of another application for
appointing other Advocate Commissioner, after
rejection of report submitted by Mr. Bharose Lal, vide
order dated 06.12.2018, reveals that petitioner had
no grievance against the order dated 06.12.2018;
instead of seeking review of order dated 06.12.2018,
6
petitioner chose to file application for appointing
another Advocate Commissioner, therefore,
petitioner/review applicant cannot now contend that
the order dated 06.12.2018 is erroneous, therefore,
deserves to be reviewed. He submits that petitioner
cannot be permitted to approbate and reprobate at
the same time. Learned counsel for respondent no. 4
further submits that there is no error apparent in the
orders dated 05.12.2018 and 06.12.2018, which may
warrant invocation of review jurisdiction by this
Court.
20. This Court finds substance in the
submission made on behalf of the respondents. The
order dated 06.12.2018 indicates that petitioner’s
counsel stated that he is not willing to place reliance
on the report of Mr. Bharose Lal. The said order
reveals that the report submitted by Mr. Bharose Lal
was rejected with the consent of parties. If
petitioner’s concession was wrongly recorded in the
order dated 06.12.2018, then remedy for petitioner
was to immediately seek review of that order, but
instead of doing so, he filed application praying for
appointment of some other Advocate Commissioner.
Petitioner’s conduct corroborates the submission
made on behalf of the respondents that petitioner
consented to rejection of report submitted by
Mr. Bharose Lal.
21. Review of an order can be made only when
there is an error apparent on the face of record, but
this Court do not find any error, which may warrant
7
invocation of review jurisdiction. Moreover, the order
dated 06.12.2018 was passed with the consent given
on behalf of the petitioner, therefore, this Court does
not find any reason to review the said order.
22. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court does
not find any scope to review the order dated
06.12.2018. Review Application (IA No. 19663 of
2025) is rejected.
Misc. Application ( I.A. No. 19665 of 2025
23. Miscellaneous Application (IA No. 19665 of
2025) stands disposed of accordingly.
Misc. Application (CLMA No. 19659 of 2018)
24. This application was filed on 18.12.2018
with the following prayer:-
“A. Pass necessary orders appointing any person as
this Hon’ble Court may find suitable as Advocate
Commissioner for the purpose of submitting with this
Hon’ble Court a report concerning the issues as
detailed in paragraph no. 9 above or such other
issues which the Hon’ble Court may deem fit and
proper.”
25. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that petitioner purchased 187.489 hectare land
comprised in Khasra No. 1298-1331 in Village Rikholi,
District Dehradun by means of different sale deeds
executed between 2007-2010. He submits that since
the purchased land is fragmented, therefore,
Advocate Commissioner deserves to be appointed, for
identifying the land purchased by the petitioner.
26. Learned State Counsel, however, submits
that courts cannot use their authority, such as
8
appointing Commissioners to collect evidence for a
party or to bridge-gaps in a case. He submits that
courts’ agency is intended to resolve disputes, based
on material on record and not for phishing
expeditions to gather evidence on behalf of a party.
He submits that Court Commissioners can be
appointed in appropriate cases where there is
ambiguity on a specific aspect and the purpose of
Commissions is not to replace the evidence that
should be collected by the parties. He further submits
that law is well settled that Court Commissioner
cannot be appointed to fill-up lacuna, which might
have been left in the evidence and since petitioner
has not been able to bring any evidence on record in
support of his case, therefore, he has made this
prayer for appointing Advocate Commissioner.
Learned State Counsel further submits that petitioner
has challenged the notifications issued by the State
Government under Section 4 & 6 of the Land
Acquisition Act, therefore, there is no factual dispute
to be resolved, for which report from Advocate
Commissioner would be needed. He further submits
that if Advocate Commissioner is appointed and his
report is taken on record, then respondents will
agitate their right of filing objection to the report and
thereafter oral testimony of the witnesses will also
have to be recorded. He submits that challenge
thrown by petitioner to the notifications issued under
Land Acquisition Act can be decided without going
9
into the factual disputes, which petitioner is trying to
bring in through Advocate Commissioner’s report.
27. Learned State Counsel further submits that
petitioner has challenged the notifications issued
under Land Acquisition Act, 1894, whereby
proceedings for acquisition of land were set in
motion. He submits that from the relief claimed by
the petitioner, it is apparent that petitioner is clear
about identity of the land purchased by him, as no
one would challenge notifications issued under
Section 4 & 6 of Land Acquisition Act in respect of
land belonging to some other person. He further
submits that every litigant approaching Court for
relief has to stand on his own feet, therefore, the
prayer made by petitioner deserves to be rejected.
Learned State Counsel further submits that petitioner
cannot be permitted to enlarge scope of writ petition
by bringing in unnecessary factual disputes. Learned
State Counsel further submits that petitioner is trying
to convert this writ petition to a title suit, as he wants
to establish his title over a land, which was acquired
by the State Government between 1987-1990.
Learned State Counsel further submits that if
petitioner wants declaration of his title over the land
in question, then, the only remedy available to him,
is by way of approaching a civil court.
28. Learned counsel for the petitioner, per
contra, submits that the land in question was
purchased by petitioner after demarcation under
Section 41 of the Land Revenue Act and petitioner’s
10
name is mutated in revenue record, therefore, State
Government cannot now claim any right or title over
that land. He further submits that in reply to an
application under Right to Information Act, Land
Record Officer has informed that land comprised in
Khasra No. 1298-1331 in Village Rikholi is outside the
limits of Municipality Mussoorie and there is no
notification issued under Municipalities Act, bringing
village Rikholi or part thereof within limits of Nagar
Palika Parishad, Mussoorie. He further submits that
respondent no. 4 has stated in his reply that the
property purchased by petitioner was not the subject
matter of land acquisition.
29. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents
submit that the locality where Khasra No. 1298-1331
are situate, is part of Park-Estate, which is within
limits of Nagar Palika Parishad, Mussoorie ever since
it was constituted in the year 1933. He further
submits that District Magistrate informed the
petitioner, vide order dated 22.04.2013 that the land
in question was acquired by the State for a public
purpose and that land has been recorded in revenue
record in the name of Tourism Department of State
Government. Thus, it is contended by learned counsel
for respondents that the prayer for appointing
Advocate Commissioner is misconceived and having
regard to the issue involved in the writ petition,
appointment of Advocate Commissioner would be
unwarranted.
11
30. This Court is of the considered opinion that
having regard to the issues raised and relief claimed
in the writ petition, appointment of Advocate
Commissioner would be unwarranted. Petitioner
claims to have purchased land comprised in different
khasra numbers by separate sale deeds; the
description of the khasra numbers and sale deeds is
given in paragraph no. 6 of the writ petition. Since
there is no confusion or ambiguity in the mind of the
petitioner regarding identity of the land purchased by
him, therefore, issuing Commission to get a report
would not be warranted. For deciding the issues
raised in the writ petition, report of the Advocate
Commissioner would not be needed.
31. Learned counsel for the respondents are
right in submitting that Advocate Commissioner
cannot be appointed in order to collect evidence.
Since there is no ambiguity regarding identity of the
land in question and other issues can be decided by
this Court based on documentary evidence available
on record, therefore, the prayer for appointing
Advocate Commissioner is liable to be rejected and is
hereby rejected. Miscellaneous Application (IA No.
19659 of 2018) is rejected.
32. List on 28.05.2026.
(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
20.04.2026
Navin
12