In a hearing that carried a mix of frustration and curiosity, the Uttarakhand High Court at Nainital reopened a long-drawn battle over a property on Rajpur Road, Dehradun. Justice Rakesh Thapliyal, presiding over Civil Revision No. 97 of 2025, examined whether ASG Pharma Pvt. Ltd. could step into an eviction suit that began way back in 2001. But midway through arguments, the Court turned its focus to a deeper question-does the State itself own the disputed land?
Read also: Tripura High Court slams Railways for delay in land compensation, dismisses revision plea with costs
Background
The dispute traces back to an eviction suit filed by Shanti Devi in 2001 against tenants occupying the premises. The suit, decreed ex parte in 2002, later saw multiple appeals and reviews reaching even the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, in 2004, Shanti Devi sold part of the property-over 4,500 square meters-to ASG Pharma. The pharma company has since been trying to get itself impleaded in the ongoing proceedings, arguing that it purchased the land in good faith.
State authorities, however, had once attempted to acquire a portion of the property for official residences, a move struck down by the High Court in 2013 as a “colourable exercise of power.” Even that battle went all the way up to the Supreme Court, which in 2024 restored the original eviction suit for fresh hearing.
Read also: Tripura High Court Orders HSCL to Pay Rs.1.26 Crore to Contractor for Arbitrary Contract Termination
Court’s Observations
On Friday, counsel for ASG Pharma insisted that the company was a necessary party to the case since ownership had legally passed to it by way of the 2004 sale deed. The Court noted, however, that the pharma firm had stayed away from litigation for nearly two decades despite being aware of the proceedings.
The State, represented by Standing Counsel I.P. Kohli, made an unexpected claim-that neither Shanti Devi nor ASG Pharma are true owners. According to the State, the property has always belonged to the government. Kohli argued bluntly, “If the State is the owner, then the very foundation of this eviction suit collapses.”
Read also: Meghalaya High Court Upholds Old Pension Rights for Junior Divisional Accountants, Rejects State
This assertion triggered sharp responses. Counsel for the original plaintiff dismissed the State’s claim, pointing to a 1954 lease agreement where Shanti Devi’s rights over the property were never disputed. “Ownership has never been challenged until now,” argued advocate Piyush Garg, adding that the State’s stance was “absolutely misconceived.”
Justice Thapliyal appeared troubled by the twist. He observed, “If the State is indeed the owner of the suit property, then the question arises-for what purpose is this litigation continuing for the last 24 years?”
Decision
Before passing any further order, the Court directed the State government to submit documentary proof of ownership. The matter has now been listed for October 8, 2025.
Case: ASG Pharma Pvt. Ltd. vs. Divyam Singh & Others
Case Type: Civil Revision (No. 97 of 2025)
Date of Hearing: 26 September 2025
Next Hearing Date: 8 October 2025