WPMS/74/2023
2023 Latest Caselaw 230 UK

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
                  AT NAINITAL

                       SRI JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI, C.J.

                              12TH JANUARY, 2023
        WRIT PETITION (M/S) NO. 74 OF 2023
Between:
Martand Singh                    ...............Petitioner.

and

Devi Prasad                                                  ....Respondent


Counsel for the petitioner.          :   Mr. Vikas Bahuguna, proxy counsel for
                                         Mr. Kshitij Sah.

Counsel for the respondents          :   Mr. Neeraj Garg, learned counsel for
                                         the respondents.




Upon hearing the learned Counsel, the Court made the
following

JUDGMENT :

Issue Notice.

2. Mr. Neeraj Garg, learned counsel for the respondents,

appears and accepts notice.

3. The present petition has been preferred by the

petitioner to seek the following relief:-

"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the record of the case and to quash the impugned order /judgment dated 23.12.2022 (Annexure No. 2) passed by Board of Revenue, Uttarakhand at Dehradun in Misc. Case No. 13 / 2021 - 2022 Martand Singh vs. Devi Prasad and another and further to allow the delay condonation application and restoration application filed by the petitioner challenging the compromise order dated 27.05.2019 passed in Revision No. 89/2017 Devi Prasad and another Vs. Surendra Pratap Singh."

4. The submission of Mr. Bahuguna, proxy counsel for Mr.

Kshitij Sah, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the

Board of Revenue rejected his application for recall on the

ground that the same was barred by limitation, and the

same was not maintainable.

5. The Application was preferred by the petitioner to seek

recall of the order, whereby the compromise arrived at

between the present respondent and the respondent in the

Revision Petition No. 69 of 2017 was recorded, and the

Collector was directed to pass an order after completing the

formalities in the revision petition and in accordance with

law.

6. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner's name

already stands recorded in the revenue records in respect of

the land-in-question as a Co-Bhumidhar, and if the Collector

proceeds to pass an order without hearing the petitioner,

the same would be highly prejudicial to the petitioner.

7. In my view, the direction issued by the Board of

Revenue to the Collector to pass an order inter alia after

completing the formalities is broad enough to require the

Collector to notice the petitioner, since the petitioner is also

one of the Co-Bhumidhars in respect of the land-in-question.

The Collector shall, accordingly, put the petitioner to notice

while dealing with the compromise arrived at between the

present respondent and the respondent in the aforesaid

Revision Petition.

8. The petition stands disposed of accordingly.

________________ VIPIN SANGHI, C.J.

Dt: 12th January, 2023 Rathour