Uttarakhand High Court
WPMS/2429/2025 on 20 August, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
Office Notes,
reports, orders or
SL. proceedings or
Date COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No directions and
Registrar's order
with Signatures
WPMS No.2429 of 2025
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
Mr. M.S. Tyagi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by
Mr. Sunil Chandra and Mr. Kailash Chandra, Advocates for
the petitioners.
2. Mr. Mr. Sudhir Nainwal, S.C. for the Sate.
3. Mr. Siddharth Singh, learned Advocate for the
respondent nos.1 and 2/Caveator.
4. There is a typographical error in the relief clause of the
petition, as the name of the court has been inadvertently
transcribed incorrectly, in the interest of justice learned
counsel for the petitioners is permitted to correct it during
the course of the day and to supply the amended memo of
prayer clause as per the rule today itself.
5. This writ petition has been filed under Article 227 of
the Constitution of India, whereby the petitioner has put to
challenge the order dated 25.06.2025 (annexure no.7)
passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Garhwal
Division, Dehradun, in Revision No.11/2024-25, Sri Yakub
and another Vs. Sri Sadakat & others, under Section 219 of
Land Revenue Act, 1901 (hereinafter referred to as "Act of
1901"), as well as judgment and order dated 13.01.2025 ,
passed in Case No.07/2024-25, Yakub Vs. Sri Sadakat &
others, under Section 41 of the Act of 1901.
6. It is case of the petitioner that the petitioner has
moved an application under Section 41 of the Act of 1901,
to the Assistant Collector, Ist Class, Roorkee, but the said
application was rejected after calling for the report vide
judgment and order dated 13.01.2025. Feeling aggrieved,
the petitioner challenged the said order by filing a revision
under Section 219 of Act of 1901, before the learned
Additional Commissioner, Parui-Garhwal, Camp Dehradun,
instead of filing an appeal as provided under Section 210 of
the Act of 1901.
7. The said revision was dismissed by the learned
Additional Commissioner, Parui-Garhwal, Camp Dehradun
vide order dated 25.06.2025 holding that the revision is not
maintainable in view of the alternate remedy of filing an
appeal. Aggrieved by the both the orders the petitioner is
before this Court.
8. It is submitted by learned Senior Advocate for the
petitioner that Section 219 of Act of 1901, provides remedy
of filing of a revision against the orders passed by the
learned Assistant Collector, Ist Class, if the appeal is not
filed. Since admittedly petitioner has not filed any appeal
under Section 210 of Act of 1901 against the judgment and
order dated 13.01.2025, passed by learned Assistant
Collector, Ist Class, Roorkee. The revision can be filed by the
petitioner; therefore it is argued that the observation made
by learned Additional Commissioner, Dehradun, that the
revision was not maintainable was totally uncalled for and
unbelievable and dehors the express provision of law.
9. The aforesaid fact is not disputed by the learned
counsel for the respondents.
10. In this view of the matter, judgment and order dated
25.06.2025, passed by learned Additional Commissioner,
Dehradun, in Revision No.11/2024-25, Sri Yakub and
another Vs. Sri Sadakat & others, is hereby set aside and the
matter is remanded back to the court of learned Additional
Commissioner, Dehradun, who shall decided the aforesaid
revision on merits.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
20.08.2025
SK
