IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 811 of 2010 (M/S) Mohd. Shamshad & another ………Petitioners Versus State of Uttarakhand & others …….Respondents Shri U.K. Uniyal, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Sandeep Kothari, learned counsel for the petitioners Shri R.C. Arya, learned Brief Holder for the State Dated: 31 May, 2010 Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking the relief in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere in the peaceful possession of the piece of land measuring 0.3575 hectare agricultural land situated at Mauja Khatka Ahatmal, Pargana and Tehsil Roorkee, District Haridwar of the petitioner no.1 and the land measuring 0.21183 hectare agricultural land situated at Mauja Khatka Pargana and Tehsil Roorkee, District Haridwar of the petitioner no.2 of which the petitioners are bhumidhar with transferable rights and are in the peaceful possession of the said land since 6th of February, 2010. Brief facts as narrated in the writ petition are that Smt. Bala W/o Dharam Singh and Master Bulbeer (minor) S/o Late Dharam Singh had inherited the property including the piece of land in question from deceased Dharam Singh. After the death of Dharam Singh Smt. Bala W/o Dharam Singh had no other source of income. Nobody from the side of her deceased husband ever supported her and therefore, she sold the 0.3575 hectare agricultural land situated at Mauja Khatka Ahatmal Pargana and Tehsil Roorkee, District Haridwar to petitioner no.1 and agricultural land measuring 0.21183 hectare situated at Mauja Khatka Pargana and Tehsil Roorkee, District Haridwar to petitioner no.2 and possession was also handed over to them. After receiving the price of the said land the seller namely Smt. Bala and Kulbeer Singh had purchased the land measuring 0.456 hectare situated at Mauja Rampur, Raighati Mustakham, Pargana Jwalapur and another piece of land measuring 0.373 hectare at Mauja Bhikkampur Jeetpur, Pargana Jwalapur from Shri Khoob Singh and Ganga Ram respectively. It is alleged that the piece of land sold to the petitioners was sold for the benefit of the minor and money received have been properly utilized and appropriated for the purchase of the piece of land for the benefit of minor. It is further stated in the writ petition that the police personnel of Kotwali Roorkee on 15th of May, 2010 came at the said purchased piece of land of the petitioners and had informed them that the Principal Civil Court, District Haridwar had ordered that they should be dispossessed from the land in question and it was further informed by them that they will be dispossessed on the basis of the order dated 01.04.2010, passed by the learned District Judge in case no.29 of 2009 preferred by the respondent no.3. The petitioners were not aware of the pendency of such suit before the learned District Judge, Haridwar as the petitioners have not been arrayed as respondents in the said suit. On being informed by the police personnel, the petitioners went to District Court, Haridwar on 17.05.2010 and enquired about the case no.29 of 2009 in the Court. After making inquiry, it has come into the knowledge of the petitioners that the respondent no.3 had preferred a suit U/s 10, 25 and 29 of the Guardian & Wards Act, 1890 claiming the guardianship of the minor Kulbeer Singh and in the said suit an application 5 Ka (2) had been preferred in which it has been prayed by the plaintiff in the said suit, i.e. respondent no.3, that Smt. Bala may be restrained from selling the property to any person otherwise the plaintiff shall suffer irreparable loss. He claimed himself to be the guardian of the minor Kulbeer Singh. On 01.04.2010 the learned District Judge passed an order that the property in dispute described in the schedule annexed with the plaint may not be sold to third person. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submitted that before passing of the said order dated 01.04.2010, the property in question had already been purchased by the petitioners on 06.02.2010 and the possession had also been handed over to them and the order dated 01.04.2010 is not applicable on the piece of land purchased by the petitioners and the injunction order granted by the learned District Judge cannot be retrospective more specifically when no such pleading has been made in the plaint itself. The respondents in the grab of the order dated 01.04.2010, passed by the learned District Judge, in civil suit no.29 of 2009 (Saudagar Singh Vs. Smt. Bala & others) are harassing the petitioners and trying to dispossess them from the property in question. The order dated 01.04.2010 by no stretch of imagination is applicable in the land that had already been purchased by the petitioners and had invested a handsome amount in sowing the crops on the said land. Learned Senior counsel further submitted that the petitioners are absolute owners of the 0.3575 hectare agricultural land situated at Mauja Khatka Ahatmal Pargana and Tehsil Roorkee, District Haridwar and land measuring 0.21183 hectare agricultural land situated at Mauja Khatka Pargana and Tehsil Roorkee, District Haridwar and had acquired the said title free from any encumbrance from the persons having bhumidhari transferable rights by executing a valid sale deed and, therefore, have every right to enjoy the fruits of the property in question. He argued that the respondents cannot restrain the petitioners from enjoying the property nor they can dispossess the petitioners on the basis of the said orders and just in order to harass the petitioners, they are threatening the petitioners to dispossess them from the property in question. The action of the respondents in interfering the peaceful possession of the property of the petitioner and the harassment in grab of order dated 01.04.2010 certainly amounts to violation of fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution of India. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that no writ, as prayed by the petitioners, can be issued in their favour. The petitioners are at liberty to avail the appropriate remedy available to them under the law. However, it is observed that government authorities are duty bound to act in accordance with law and they will follow the same in present case also. The writ petition is dismissed. ( V.K. Bist , J.) 31.05.2010 Arpan