NAINITAL, India, March 23 -- Uttarakhand High Court issued the following judgment/order on Feb. 20: 1. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, he is a landless person, who was allotted a piece of agricultural land declared surplus in proceedings under U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960, vide order dated 13.01.2006. Grievance raised by petitioner is that his name is not being recorded in Category 1 kha i.e. Bhumidhar with non-transferable right. 2. Learned counsel f...
NAINITAL, India, March 23 -- Uttarakhand High Court issued the following judgment/order on Feb. 20: 1. According to learned counsel for the petitioners, they are landless person, who were allotted a piece of agricultural land declared surplus in proceedings under U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960, vide order dated 13.01.2006. Grievance raised by petitioners are that their name are not being recorded in Category 1 kha i.e. Bhumidhar with non-transferable right. 2. Learned c...
NAINITAL, India, March 23 -- Uttarakhand High Court issued the following judgment/order on Feb. 20: 1. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, he is a landless person, who was allotted a piece of agricultural land declared surplus in proceedings under U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960, vide order dated 13.01.2006. Grievance raised by petitioner is that his name is not being recorded in Category 1 kha i.e. Bhumidhar with non-transferable right. 2. Learned counsel f...
NAINITAL, India, March 23 -- Uttarakhand High Court issued the following judgment/order on Feb. 20: 1. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, he is a landless person, who was allotted a piece of agricultural land declared surplus in proceedings under U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960, vide order dated 13.01.2006. Grievance raised by petitioner is that his name is not being recorded in Category 1 kha i.e. Bhumidhar with non-transferable right. 2. Learned counsel f...
NAINITAL, India, March 23 -- Uttarakhand High Court issued the following judgment/order on Feb. 20: 1. By means of present writ petition, petitioner has sought the following reliefs:- "(i) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to forthwith enforce and ensure strict compliance of the SDM's order dated 13.11.2025 (annexure-08) thereby stopping all construction activitiy and maintaining status quo over Khasra No.372. (ii) Direct the respondent authorities to take immedi...
NAINITAL, India, March 23 -- Uttarakhand High Court issued the following judgment/order on Feb. 20: 1. According to learned counsel for the petitioners, they are landless person, who were allotted a piece of agricultural land declared surplus in proceedings under U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960, vide order dated 13.01.2006. Grievance raised by petitioners are that their names are not being recorded in Category 1 kha i.e. Bhumidhar with non-transferable right. 2. Learned ...
NAINITAL, India, March 23 -- Uttarakhand High Court issued the following judgment/order on Feb. 20: 1. By means of present writ petition, petitioner has sought the following reliefs:- "(A) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents authorities to conduct proper demarcation of the petitioner's land comprised in Khata No.00455, Khasra No.417M situated at Village Shantarsah, Teshil Roorkee, District Haridwar. (C) Issue a writ, order or dire...
NAINITAL, India, March 23 -- Uttarakhand High Court issued the following judgment/order on Feb. 20: 1. By means of the present writ petition, petitioners have sought the indulgence of this Court for a direction to respondent Nos.2 and 3 to decide the representations dated 03.11.2025 and 19.02.2025 submitted by petitioners (Annexure Nos.6 and 7) as expeditiously as possible or within a stipulated time. 2. It is contended by learned counsel for petitioners that there happens to be water logging...
NAINITAL, India, March 23 -- Uttarakhand High Court issued the following judgment/order on Feb. 20: 1. Petitioner is working with respondent No.3 on the post of Driver. His services were regularized vide order dated 01.11.2002 and since then he has been discharging his duties as Driver with respondent No.3. 2. It is the grievance of petitioner that despite having put in 24 years of service, he is getting the same pay since 2013, when he was sanctioned Pay Scale of Rs.5200-20200 with Grade Pay ...
NAINITAL, India, March 23 -- Uttarakhand High Court issued the following judgment/order on Feb. 20: 1. Petitioner was appointed in the year 1996-97 with respondent No.3 on contractual basis and thereafter, her services were regularized vide order dated 26.09.2012 as Assistant Field Supervisor, and, since then, she has been discharging her duties as Assistant Field Supervisor with respondent No.3. 2. It is the grievance of petitioner that despite having put in more than 13 years of service, sh...