IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1481 of 2007. 1. Ganga Ram Adwani Son of Sri Nawalmal Adwani, Resident of Gumaniwala, Shyampur, District Dehradun. 2. Smt. Pushpa Adwani, Wife of Sri Ganga Ram Adwani, Resident of Gumaniwala, Shyampur, District Dehradun. 3. Sri Adesh Adwani Son of Ganga Ram Adwani, Resident of Gumaniwala, Shyampur, District Dehradun. 4. Sri Vinay Adwani Son of Sri Ganga Ram Adewani Resident of Gumaniwala, Shyampur, District Dehradun. Vs. … Petitioners. 1. State of Uttarakhand through Chief Secretary, Govt. of Uttarakhand at Dehradun. 2. District Magistrate, Dehradun. 3. Nagar Palika Rishikesh through its Executive Officer Rishikesh, District Dehradun. …Respondents. Mr. Arvind Vashist, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. K.P.Upadhay, learned Additional C.S.C. for the respondent no. 1 and 2. Mr. Anil Bisht, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Ravi Babulkar, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondent no.3. Date April 05, 2010. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. record. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the 2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order impugned dated 29- 8-2007 whereby the property no. 395, Bhiwani Wala Ashram, Rishikesh has been ordered to vest in the State Government on the ground that the sale of the property was made without permission of the District Judge and Mutation order, which was made under Section 34of the U.P. Municipalities Act, in favour of the petitioners, has also been set side. 3. The main ground of challenge raised by the petitioners is that no opportunity of hearing was given to them before passing the 2 order impugned and that the Collector is not competent to pass such order. 4. Counter affidavit has been filed by the District Magistrate Dehradun-respondent no.2. In paragraph nos. 3 and 4 it is stated that the power of the Collector is also traceable in Clause-3, Chapter 1 of the Wajib-ul-arz itself, the document, which is a title document, therefore, the property would vest in the State Government. It is also stated that the ownership of the property was vested in “Bharat Ji Mandir” and the Mahant had only to look-after the property and he had no right to transfer it as mentioned in clause-8, Chapter 2 of the said document and the sale had been effected in violation of all the conditions stipulated in Wajib-ul-arz. 5. On behalf of the petitioners, rejoinder affidavit has been filed. In paragraph no. 3 it is stated that Wazib-ul-arz has not been defined by any enactment or rules. This term is used for matter of these conditions, which get attached to a property by some usage or a contract. The scope and application of Wajib-ul-arz is limited. This can be removed by the parties or may disappear with time. Reliance has been placed by the petitioners’ counsel in pragraph 20 of the case of Chhote Khan and others Vs. Mal Khan and others [AIR, 1954, Supreme Court, Page 575], wherein it has been inter alia held that “ it has been held in a number of cases that the entry regarding agreement in a Wajib-ul-arz holds good during the period of settlement in which it is made and becomes inoperative when the Settlement has come to an end.” 6. I have perused the order impugned (Annexure-15). 7. This fact is not disputed that no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioners before passing the impugned order by the District Magistrate/Collector Dehradun. 3 8. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for both the parties have agreed to it that the matter be remanded to the Collector, who may pass fresh orders after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. 9. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, without entering into the merits of the case, it is obvious that the impugned order has been passed by the respondent No. 2-Collector Dehradun without giving opportunity of hearing, therefore, on this ground alone, the impugned order is set aside. Matter is remanded to the Collector with liberty to him to pass the order afresh in accordance with law after hearing the petitioners as well as the respondents. The petitioners may raise all objections including the competence of the Collector, which have been raised in this writ petition before the Collector concerned and the Collector shall decide the matter expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months, without being influenced by the order of this Court. 10. With the said observation and direction, the writ petition is allowed. Costs easy. RCP (B.S.Verma,J.) 4