The Uttarakhand High Court recently dismissed a petition seeking a permanent injunction on the ground that the petitioner has been in possession of the land for more than 50 years.
The petitioner has approached the High Court with the case that for about more than five decades, he has been in a hostile possession of a land, lying in village Lokmanipur, Tehsil Kotdwara, Pauri Garhwal. He submitted that as per the revenue records, the land continues to be recorded as banjar land for agriculture purposes.
Navnish Negi, the advocate for the petitioner, argued that despite the fact that the petitioner has been in possession for a considerable long time and was cultivating the field, hence petitioner would have matured his rights for being declared as a bhumidhar with nontransferable rights, in the light of the provisions contained under the Government Order dated 04.09.1995.
The Counsel for the Petitioner further argued that in the light of the provisions contained under Section 122B(4-F) of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. (U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act) , which contemplates that a person in possession of a land, who belongs to an oppressed class, need not file a suit for declaration of right, as he would be treated as to be a bhumidhar with non-transferable rights.
Negi contended that the action of the respondents infringes the implication of Section 122B(4-F) of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, as per the view of the High Court, is not a procedural provision of declaration of right, but rather it is a protection granted to the oppressed class based on the factual circumstances of each case.
Also Read:- Madras High Court frowns at its Registry for exercising judicial powers by segregating cases
A single-judge bench of Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma observed, “In case, if the respondents by virtue of the impugned order had proceeded to allot the land to the Tourism Department, for the purposes of establishment of the Gas Godown, if at all, the interference in possession of the petitioner, has been made, then the regular suit for the grant of decree of permanent injunction would not be barred under law rather would be the remedy available to the petitioner.
“In that eventuality, the writ Courts will not be in a better position, to appreciate the evidence, which is being sought to be relied on by the petitioner, by placing the photographs on record. Hence, this writ petition is being dismissed with a liberty left open to the petitioner to seek an appropriate remedy before the regular Civil Court, for the grant of decree of permanent injunction on the basis of the arguments which has been agitated by the petitioner in the present writ petition. Subject to above observation, the writ petition stands dismissed,” the order reads.