Uttarakhand High Court
Ankur Verma vs Vipin Kumar And Others on 15 April, 2025
Author: Rakesh Thapliyal
Bench: Rakesh Thapliyal
2025:UHC:2747
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition Misc. Single No. 1065 of 2025
Ankur Verma. ............... Petitioner
Versus
Vipin Kumar and others. ..............Respondents
Presence:-
Mr. Rajat Mittal, Advocate for the petitioner (through V.C.).
Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J.
1. By the instant writ petition, petitioner is praying for the
following relief:
"i. Set aside the judgment and order dated 20.03.2025
(Annexure No. 8) passed by learned court of Revenue
Board, Dehradun, in Revision No. 32 / 2022 - 23 titled
as Ankur Verma Vs. Vipin Kumar and others whereby
the learned Revenue Board dismissed the revision filed by
the petitioner, directed the Tehsildar, Vikas Nagar to
decide the mutation case on merits and in accordance
with law within 6 weeks after affording the opportunity
of hearing to the petitioner and other necessary parties
and further directed the parties to maintain status quo
till the conclusion of mutation proceedings and not to
create any third party interest in respect of property in
question.
ii. Set aside the judgment and order dated 08.06.2023
(Annexure No. 4) passed by Tehsildar, Vikas Nagar, in a
proceeding bearing restoration case no. 216 / 2022 - 23
(Vipin Kumar Vs. Ankur Verma and others) under
Section 201 of the Land Revenue Act whereby the
mutation order dated 11.04.2022 passed in favour of
petitioner by Naib Tehsildar, Vikas Nagar was set aside
2025:UHC:2747
and mutation case restored to its original number."
2. Mr. Rajat Mittal, learned counsel for the petitioner argued
that respondent no. 4 gifted a property falling in Khata
Khatauni no. 00434 (fasli year 1416 to 1421), Khasra No. 1027,
admeasuring 948.88 sq. metres situated at Mauja Pondha,
Pargana - Pachhwadoon, Tehsil - Vikas Nagar, District -
Dehradun to the petitioner by way of gift deed dated 07.12.2021
and thereafter, pursuant to WILL the petitioner's name was
mutated in the revenue record pursuant to an order passed in
the mutation proceedings initiated on an application under
Section 34 of the Land Revenue Act. It is argued that the gift
deed was executed by respondent no. 4 - Nitin Kumar
pursuant to the power of attorney given by three other co-
sharers i.e. respondents no. 1 to 3, who are real brothers of
Nitin Kumar and in the gift deed, son of Vipin Kumar
(respondent no. 1) is one of the witness.
3. After mutation of name of the petitioner in revenue
record, a recall application was moved by respondents no. 1 to
3, herein, namely Vipin Kumar, Susheel Kumar and Anil
Kumar, (brother of Nitin Kumar) all son of Dharam Singh, on
the ground that no notice of mutation proceedings under
Section 34 of the Land Revenue Act were served to them.
Consequently, the Tehsildar allowed the recall application by
order dated 08.06.2023 and notice was issued to the petitioner
to file his objection. Against this order, petitioner preferred a
revision before the Board of Revenue and the Board of Revenue
on 20.03.2025 dismissed the revision by affirming the order of
Tehsildar dated 08.06.2023 and remanded the matter back to
the Tehsildar to decide the mutation proceedings afresh, in
accordance with law within a period of six weeks and till then,
the parties were also directed to maintain the status quo over
2025:UHC:2747
the property in question.
4. Aggrieved with the order dated 20.03.2025 of the Board of
Revenue in Revision No. 32 of 2022 - 23 (Ankur Verma Vs.
Vipin Kumar and others), instant writ petition has been
preferred.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
Tehsildar while recalling the order of mutation observed that
by virtue of power of attorney, the power of attorney holder
cannot transfer the land by virtue of gift deed and can be
transferred only by way of sale deed.
6. Apart from this, learned counsel submits that an Original
Suit No. 156 of 2024 was also instituted on 29.11.2024 by Vipin
Kumar, Susheel Kumar and Anil Kumar, jointly against the
petitioner and respondent no. 4 - Nitin Kumar as defendants
for seeking declaration that the gift deed dated 07.12.2021 be
declared as null and void. He further submits that the
observations made by the Tehsildar dated 08.06.2023 will come
in to their way in the pending suit filed by respondents no. 1 to
3 in the court of Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Vikas Nagar,
Dehradun, since the same has been confirmed by the Board of
Revenue in the order impugned.
7. Undisputedly, entry in the revenue record is not meant
for deciding the title and it is meant for limited purposes i.e. for
fiscal purposes. Question of title based on Gift Deed can only be
decided in pending Original Suit No. 156 of 2024 wherein gift
deed executed by Nitin Kumar is put under challenge.
8. I find force on the submission advanced by Mr. Rajat
Mittal, learned counsel for the petitioner that the observation
made by the Tehsildar in it's order dated 08.06.2023 will come
to their way in contesting the pending suit i.e. Original Suit No.
156 of 2024. Consequently, this Court is of the view that there is
2025:UHC:2747
no purpose to keep this writ petition pending particularly
when the respondents no. 1 to 3 already filed a suit for
cancellation of gift deed executed by respondent no. 4 - Nitin
Kumar in favour of the petitioner i.e. Original Suit No. 156 of
2024, which is still pending for adjudication.
9. In view of this, the instant writ petition is disposed of
finally with the direction to the learned Civil Judge, (Senior
Division), Vikas Nagar, Dehradun to expedite the Original Suit
No. 156 of 2024 in accordance with law as early as possible
without being influenced with the observations of Tehsildar in
it's order dated 08.06.2023. It is made clear that till the Original
Suit No. 156 of 2024 is decided by the Civil Judge (Senior
Division) Vikas Nagar, Dehradun, both the parties shall
maintain status quo over the property in question and will not
create any third party interest over the property, in question
and the proceedings pending before the Tehsildar, Vikas Nagar
shall remain in abeyance till the Original Suit No. 156 of 2024 be
decided finally. No order as to costs.
(Rakesh Thapliyal, J.)
15.04.2025
SKS
