IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1066 of 2003 (M/B) Jag Mohan Singh Negi, S/o Sri Bachan Singh Negi, R/o Village Saund Koti, Post Badsahi Thol, District Tehri Garhwal. …….. Petitioner Versus 1. The Commissioner, Garhwal Mandal, Pauri. 2. District Magistrate / Additional Commissioner, Tehri Garhwal. 3. The Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehri, Tehri Garhwal. 4. Deputy Conservator of Forest, Tehri Forest Division, New Tehri. 5. Kaushal Singh S/o Sri Gorya Singh, Ex Gram Pradhan, Saund Koti, District Tehri Garhwal. 6. Bhagwan Singh S/o Sri Mangal Singh, R/o Village & Post Kandargaon, Patti Udai Kot, District Tehri Garhwal. 7. Smt. Sunla Devi W/o Sri Jagat Singh, R/o Village Kothi Talli Post Nakot, District Tehri Garhwal. 8. Dhani Ram S/o Sri Amar Deo, R/o Village and Post Naicholi, District Pauri Garhwal. 9. Smt. Kameshwari W/o Sri Shradhanand, R/o Village Bagoli, Tehri Garhwal and Sri Rajendra Prasad S/o Sri Rameswar Prasad Bijlwan, R/o Kyari Makhlegi, District Tehri Garhwal. 10. Atar Singh S/o Sri Shyam Singh, R/o Village Kot, Post Chamba, District Tehri Garhwal. 11. Parasaharam S/o Sri Shankar Dutt, R/o Village Bhaturi Mamiyar, Post Bahera, District Tehri Garhwal. 12. Anant Ram Uniyal s/o Sri Shambhu Prasad, R/o Village & Post Tingri, District Tehri Garhwal. 13. Ajbir Singh & Kishor Singh, S/o Sri Bal Krishna, R/o Village and Post Kauldhar, District Tehri Garhwal. 14. Asharam S/o Sri Indra Deo Thapliyal, R/o Village Gunogi, District Tehri Garhwal, And Arun Juyal s/o Sri Bharat Ram Juyal, R/o Village Rampur Pratapnagar, District Tehri Garhwal. 2 15. Munendra Dutt Semwal S/o Sri Tara Dutt Semwal, R/o Village Dobra Patti Sarjula, District Tehri Garhwal. 16. Smt. Jauna Devi W/o Sri Upendra Dutt Saklani, R/o Village Haweli Saklana, District Tehri Garhwal. 17. Vinay Krishna S/o Sri Jai Krishna, R/o Village Uniyalgaon Saklana, District Tehri Garhwal. 18. Smt. Sushma W/o Sri Rajendra Prasad, R/o Village and Post Pangar, District Tehri Garhwal. 19. Rajendra Prasad Kothiyal S/o Sri Ravindra Prasad & Jeet Singh S/o Sri Ram Chandra, R/o Village Koti, Patti Dharpur, District Tehri Garhwal. 20. Visweswar Prasad S/o Sri Satya Prasad, R/o Chamba, District Tehri Garhwal. 21. Ashok Uniyal & Km. Usha Uniyal, Son & Daughter of Sri B.D. Uniyal, R/o Village Khal, Post Bungoli, District Tehri Garhwal. 22. Smt. Deep W/o Sri Pradeep Singh, R/o Vazir Gaon, Shahjahanpur. 23. Murlidhar Dangwal S/o Sri Ishwari Dutt, R/o Village & Post Khaseti, District Tehri Garhwal. 24. Ved Kishor Rayal S/o Sri Teekaram, R/o Village Bugala, Post Manderi Gaon, District Tehri Garhwal. 25. Govind Singh S/o Sri Hoshiyar Singh and, Balbir Singh S/o Sri Sunder Singh, R/o Village Saund Koti, Badsahi Thol, District Tehri Garhwal. ……… Respondents Mr. Alok Singh, Senior Advocate with Mr. D. Barthwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Subhash Upadhyaya, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttaranchal. JUDGMENT Coram: Hon. Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Hon. P.C. Pant, J. RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. (Oral) Mr. Alok Singh, Senior Advocate with Mr. D. Barthwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Subhash Upadhyaya, Standing Counsel for respondents Nos. 1 to 4. 3 None for respondent Nos. 5 to 25 though served through publication. 2. Petitioner Jag Mohan Singh Negi filed this writ petition styled as ‘Public Interest Litigation’ in the year 1997 in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad for the following reliefs: “a) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 23.5.1997 passed by the respondent no. 2 (Annexure “3” to the writ petition); b) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent nos. 1 and 2 to cancel the lease deeds granted in favour of respondent nos. 6 to 25; c) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent nos. 1 and 2 to ensure that the nature of the land in respect of which the lease has been granted to the respondent nos. 6 to 25 is not changed during the pendency of the aforesaid writ petition before this Hon’ble Court. d) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to cut down the trees standing on the leased land; e) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent nos. 1 and 2 not to grant lease of land without following the procedure laid down in the relevant Rules and also to inquire the validity of lease granted to various persons in the district of Tehri Garhwal since 1990 till date. f) to issue any other suitable writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case; and g) to award cost of this petition to the petitioner.” 3. The writ petition was dismissed by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court vide order dated 29.09.1997 which reads as follows: “The petitioner’s grievance is that patta has been granted illegally. The remedy is to file application under Section 198(4) U.P.Z.A. and L.R. before the Collector of the concerned district. Petition is dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy.” 4 4. The petitioner challenged the dismissal of his writ petition before the Apex Court. In Civil Appeal No. 8405-06 of 2003, the Apex Court, while setting aside the dismissal of the writ petition and remanding the matter for fresh disposal to the High Court, passed the following order: “Exemption from filing O.T. allowed. Delay condoned. Leave granted. Heard the learned counsel for both sides. The Writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed on the ground that the appellant has got an alternative remedy under section 198(4) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. It is submitted by the appellant’s counsel that the lease granted in favour of the respondent 6 to 25 was not under the provisions of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act but under the Government Grants Act. Therefore for cancellation of such leases the provisions of that U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act have no application. Counsel for the respondents also fairly concedes this point. As section 198(4) of the Act has no application, no alternative remedy as such was not available to the appellant. In the result, we set aside the judgment of the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court and request the High Court to restore the matter and dispose of the Writ Petition in accordance with law. As the subject matter of these proceedings is within the jurisdiction of the Uttaranchal High Court, the matter be transferred to Uttaranchal High Court for fresh disposal. The appeals are disposed of.” 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents filed along with the writ petition. 6. Admittedly the allotment of Government land was made in favour of some of the revenue officials and their relatives. In that behalf, it is relevant here to reproduce para 13 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 to 4, which reads as follows: “13. That the contents of para 14 of the writ petition are not admitted as are not true and also based on wrong facts and hence denied because the only three employees out of 6 to 25 respondents of this writ petition i.e. out of 20 allotees belong to Revenue 5 Department only and five allotees are the relatives of the Revenue employees out of those 2 allotees have been granted the land in some other village and rest of the twelve allotees are not the employees of the Revenue Department nor they belong to revenue employees and furthermore it is necessary to be added here that the revenue employees as well as of their relatives who have been duly allotted the land and the allotment order was made in their favour according to the norms and regulations which are prescribed in the allotment process, as such the allotments made in favour of the aforesaid respondents are totally legal and as per rules and these is no legal infirmity in the allotment process.” 7. A perusal of the order dated 23.05.1997 passed by District Magistrate, Tehri reveals that the petitioner’s representation was dismissed in a very unsatisfactory manner. 8. In view of the above-mentioned facts, we deem it necessary to direct inquiry in the matter by a High Level Committee. Since it has been the specific case of the petitioner that the land in question was forest land over which the villagers had grazing right and number of oak trees were also standing on the land, it is found necessary to constitute the Committee of Principal Secretary, Forest and Principal Secretary, Revenue to enquire into the matter. 9. We therefore constitute a Committee of Principal Secretary, Forest and principal Secretary, Revenue to enquire into the matter to find out: i. whether the grant of patta under Government Grants Act in favour of respondents Nos. 6 to 25 is in violation of the provisions and spirit of the law? ii. whether the land in question was forest land and only with a view to enable the revenue authorities to grant patta in favour of the revenue personnel and their relatives, the same was recorded as banjar revenue land? The Committee shall conclude the inquiry within a period of three months from today. 6 10. It goes without saying that if the Committee finds that the land in question was forest land and/ or the grant of patta in favour of respondents Nos. 6 to 25 was in violation of the provisions of law and its spirit, the authority concerned shall take appropriate action as expeditiously as possible for cancellation of the pattas in favour of respondents Nos. 6 to 25. 11. With the above direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. (P.C. Pant, J.) (Rajeev Gupta, C.J.) 05.04.2006 05.04.2006 G