HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1528 of 2005 (MS) Sunil Brijkishore Taneja s/o Sri Brijkishore Taneja R/o Aamwala Talla, Pargana Central Doon, District Dehradun ………. Petitioner Versus 1. State of Uttaranchal 2. District Magistrate, Dehradun 3. Assistant Collector, Dehradun ……… Respondents Sri Niranjan Bhatt, Advocate for the petitioner Standing Counsel for the respondents. Dated: 19.4.2006 Hon’ble Rajesh Tandon, J. Heard the counsel for the parties at length. By the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari quashing the orders dated 21.8.1995 and 29.8.1995 passed by the respondents. Briefly stated according to the petitioner, he is owner of the land Khat No. 3 Khasara No. 41M, 42/2M, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 49 and 30/1 situated in village Chalang, Pargana Parwadoon, Dehadun. The above land was received by petitioner through a will dated 2.9.1994 executed by Sri Laxman Das s/o Sri Ramdas r/o Das Building, Rajipur Road, Dehradun. Sri Laxman Dass expired on 9.11.1994 and after his death the land was transferred in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner is master mariner and is working in the merchant navy. The petitioner has submitted that respondent no. 3 vide Order dated 21.8.1997 directed for the vesting of the land in the State. The said order was passed in Case No. 38 of 96-97, State vs. Golden Forest India under section 166/167 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. The petitioner has submitted that the land of the petitioner vested in the State without affording opportunity to him for hearing. The petitioner was neither impleaded as a party nor served with any summon or notice. The petitioner has relied upon the order of this Court passed in Writ Petition No. 81 (MS) of 2000, where Board of Revenue allowed a revision against the similar order passed by the Revenue authority. The revisional court has held that the revisionist whose land has been taken away was not a party in the proceedings nor any summon or notice was every served upon him. The writ petition filed by the State against that order has been dismissed by this Court. The facts of the present case are squarely covered by the facts of Writ Petition No.81 of 2000, therefore, the present writ petition is decided in terms of the order dated 21.12.2005 passed in Writ Petition no. 81 of 2000. In that writ petition this Court has passed the following order: “In view of the fact that the order passed by the Revisional Court having been passed by holding that the proceedings initiated under section 166/167 is wholly void in absence of notice to the beneficiaries, i.e. tenure holders. In find no fault in the order passed by the revisional court, and the land shall continue to remain in the ownership of the tenure holders. However, Advocate General Sri M.S. Negi, Senior Advocate has submitted that liberty may be given to initiate fresh proceedings in case the ingredients of Sections 154, 155 or 166 or 167 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act are satisfied against the tenure holders however, it is made clear that if the ingredients of the aforesaid provisions are satisfied only then the proceedings against the tenure holders can be initiated. However, it is made clear that the State shall not interfere with the rights of the tenure holders except in accordance with law.” In view of the aforesaid order, liberty in given to the petitioner to approach the Additional collector/S.D.M. Dehradun by filing application for recalling of the order explaining the circumstances so for as absence of the knowledge of the order is concerned. If such an application is filed the same shall be decided by the officer concerned with a reasoned order taking into account the judgment of this court within a period of one month. Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. Dated: 19.4.2006 Rajesh Tandon, J. Dhyani