Uttarakhand High Court
SPA/262/2009 of GANGA PRASAD DANGWAL Vs DISTRICT MAGISTRATE UTTARKASHI and OTHERS on 29 December 2009
COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Special Appeal No. 262 of 2009 Ganga Prasad Dangwal ….. Appellant. Versus District Magistrate Uttarkashi and others … Respondents. Mr. Rajeev Singh Bisht, learned counsel for the appellant. Mr. H.M. Raturi, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Special Appeal No. 262 of 2009
Ganga Prasad Dangwal ….. Appellant.
Versus
District Magistrate Uttarkashi and others … Respondents.
Mr. Rajeev Singh Bisht, learned counsel for the appellant. Mr. H.M. Raturi, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. Vinay Kumar, Advocate with Mr. Niranjan Bhatt, Adocate for respondent No.3.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
JUDGMENT
Coram: Hon’ble J.S. Khehar, C.J. Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J.
J.S. Khehar, C.J.
The issue raised in the instant appeal relates to dues payable to Km. Savitri Nautiyal, who died in harness, while working in the office of Chief Development Officer, Uttarkashi. Respondent No.3, Ram Chandra Nautiyal, was admittedly nominated by the aforesaid Km. Savitri Nautiyal for the receipt of all monetary benefits. Despite the aforesaid, the appellant herein, Ganga Prasad Dangwal, raised the claim of superiority over Ram Chandra Nautiyal. This claim was based on certain papers filed by Km. Savitri Nautiyal, allegedly substituting Ram Chandra Nautiyal with Ganga Prasad Dangwal. On account of the aforesaid dispute, neither Ram Chandra Nautiyal, nor Ganga Prasad Dangwal, were released any of the afore-stated monetary benefits, resultantly, Ram Chandra Nautiyal, respondent No.3, approached this court by filing Writ Petition (S/S) No. 330 of 2009. The aforesaid writ petition has been allowed by a learned Single Judge of this court on 24.11.2009. In the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge, the nomination originally made by Km. Savitri in favour of Ram Chandra Nautiyal, has been found to be correct, whereas the papers allegedly filed by Km. Savitri Nautiyal, changing the nomination, so as to substitute Ram Chandra Nautiyal with Ganga Prasad Dangwal, has been held to be ambiguous. Be that as it may, while disposing of the writ petition, the learned Single Judge, granted liberty to Ganga Prasad Dangwal to seek his claim for entitlement to the monetary benefits, payable to Km. Savitri Nautiyal, if he was so advised, in accordance with law on the basis of the Will, allegedly set-up by him.
The order rendered by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 303 (S/S) of 2009, on 24.11.2009, has been assailed by the appellant, on the ground that the nomination made by Km. Savitri Nautiyal, in his favour was valid, and as such, money payable to Km. Savitri Nautiyal, should have been released to him.
During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the appellant could not dispute that in the papers, allegedly submitted by Km. Savitri Nautiyal, so as to change nomination, earlier made by her in the name of Ram Chandra Nautiyal, to substitute the same by nominating the appellant herein Ganga Prasad Dangwal, suffers from two serious infirmities. In one of the vital documents, the signature of Km. Savitri Nautiyal is missing, and in another vital document, the signatures of the two attesting witnesses have been scored out. Thus viewed, there can hardly be any justification in accepting the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant.
In view of the above we find no merit in this appeal. It is clarified, that a nominee is not entitled to retain benefits, received by him as a nominee, as matter of right. If the appellant herein has a superior right to claim the amount payable by the respondents to Km. Savitri Nautiyal, it will be open to the appellant to establish his claim before a Civil Court, in accordance with law. In case he choses to do so, observations made by the learned Single Judge, while disposing of the Writ Petition (S/S) No. 330 of 2009, or by us while disposing of the instant Special Appeal, will not stand in the way of the concerned court, to arrive at a just and proper decision on the controversy.
For the reasons, stated hereinabove, we find no merit in the instant special appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed.
ISB
(B.C. Kandpal, J.) (J.S. Khehar, C.J.)
29.12.2009