Uttarakhand High Court
Smt. Manju Bala And Others ... vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 28 July, 2023
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT
NAINITAL
Writ Petition (M/S) No.2044 of 2023
Smt. Manju Bala and Others ....Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Others ....Respondents
Present:-
Mrs. Neelima Mishra Joshi, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Suyash Pant, Standing Counsel for the State.
JUDGMENT
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
By means of the instant petition, the petitioners
seek directions that the revenue authorities may be directed
to mutate the name of the petitioners in the revenue record.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record. Learned counsel for the petitioners
appeared through video conferencing.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would
submit that predecessor-in-interest Krishan Kumar Antiwal
had purchased a property in Khasra No.593-Kha measuring
0.7120 hectares situated in village Dhakrani, Pachwadoon
Disttrict Dehradun ("the land") vide registered sale deed dated
29.04.1992. After the death of Krishan Kumar Antiwal on
10.05.2019, the petitioners tried to get their names in the
revenue records, but they were told that due to an order dated
15.06.2007, passed in State Vs. Golden Forest
Rajpal and Others, the transfer of the land has been stopped.
The petitioners earlier filed Writ Petition bearing WPMS No.
837 of 2023 ("the first petition"), in which the Court had
passed an order that "Since, a court of competent
jurisdiction has passed an interim order, therefore, during
continuance of that interim order, petitioners'
application seeking mutation cannot be processed. Thus,
the relief as claimed cannot be granted. However, it is
provided that petitioners' application shall be considered
as and when the restraint is lifted or modified by the
court concerned." In the same order dated 29.03.2023,
passed in the first petition, Tehsildar, Vikasnagar, was also
directed to supply a copy of the interim order to the
petitioners.
4. The petitioners did approach the Tehsildar. He
revealed that he did not have the original order. He provided a
photocopy and he directed the petitioners that the original
record is in the court of Assistant Collector, Vikasnagar.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would
submit that in the Khautani, it is mentioned that by virtue of
order dated 15.06.2007, passed in the case no.15/2006-
2007, State Vs. Golden Forest Rajpal and Others, the Assistant
Collector, Class-I, Vikasnagar, ("the case") had directed that
the land shall not be transferred. She would submit that the
order passed in the first petition, the petitioners did approach
the Tehsildar, but they were not given the original interim
order passed in the case.
6. The petitioners did not receive the original order
from the Tehsildar and they have approached the Court.
Reference has been made to Annexure No.7, the application,
which was made by one of the petitioners, Mohit Kumar
Antiwal, to Tehsildar for obtaining a copy of interim order
dated 15.06.2007. Learned counsel for the petitioners would
submit that they did not receive the original copy of the
interim order.
7. If they did not receive the original copy of the
interim order, what difference does it make? It really makes
no difference. In the Annexure No.7 itself, the Revenue Officer
has made an endorsement that the original file is available in
the Court of Assistant Collector, Vikasnagar. The petitioners
could have very well approached the court of Assistant
Collector, Vikasnagar, for making indulgence in the case qua
the interim order passed on 15.06.2007. In view of pendency
of the case, the instant petition cannot be entertained.
Therefore, this Court does not see any reason to make any
interference. Accordingly, the writ petition deserves to be
dismissed at the stage of admission itself.
8. The petition is dismissed in limine.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
28.07.2023
Ravi Bisht
