WPMS/2611/2022
2023 Latest Caselaw 3455 UK

             Office Notes, reports,
             orders or proceedings
SL.
      Date     or directions and                 COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No
             Registrar's order with
                  Signatures

                                      WPMS No.2611 of 2022
                                      Hon'ble Vivek Bharti Sharma, J.

Present Mr. Shobhit Saharia, counsel for the petitioners.

2. Present Mr. Ajay Veer Pundir, counsel for the caveator.

3. Counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioner firm was constituted where all the previous partners retired and the present partners entered; that, an application for some correction in the revenue record was made before the court of Tehsildar; that, the previous partners i.e. respondents raised objection that the alleged reconstitution of petitioner firm is obtained by way of fraud; that, the court of Tehsildar rejected the application for correction of the revenue record against which petitioners went in appeal before the Collector; that, the appeal also got dismissed; that, thereafter a revision was filed before the Additional Commissioner, which was allowed.

4. Counsel for the petitioners would further submit that the respondents/previous partners preferred the revision against the order of the Additional Commissioner before the Board of Revenue; that, the Board of Revenue quashed all the orders right from the order of Tehsildar upto the order passed by Additional Commissioner. He would further submit that the impugned order passed by the Board of Revenue is unsustainable as by the same all the orders have been quashed without making any observations and that is not be possible in the realm of law.

5. Per contra, counsel for the caveator/respondents would raise preliminary objection to the maintainability of the present writ petition and would submit that the mutation proceedings are summary in nature and do not decide the right or title of any of the party and cannot be challenged in a writ petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India.

6. He would further submit that the respondents/alleged previous partners filed a civil suit before the Commercial Court thereby challenging the alleged reconstitution of the partnership firm and the matter is sub-judice, therefore, even otherwise, there can be no mutation or correction, as the case may be, unless and until the final judgment in the matter sub-judice before the Commercial Court regarding the alleged reconstitution of the partnership firm.

7. He prays for and is granted three weeks time to file a detailed counter affidavit.

8. Meanwhile, the petitioners are directed to implead the State of Uttarakhand as respondent no.5 in the array of parties.

9. Mr. Yogesh Chandra Tewari, Standing Counsel for the State is present and accepts notice on behalf of the State of Uttarakhand.

10. Put up on 13.03.2024.

(Vivek Bharti Sharma, J.) 20.11.2023 BS