Uttarakhand High Court
22 August vs Ajay Rawat & Another on 22 August, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
2025:UHC:7433
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition Misc. Single No. 2430 of 2025
22 August, 2025
Jassi Prasad Bahuguna & another
--Petitioners
Versus
Ajay Rawat & another
--Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Rishab Ranghar, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Mr. Piyush Garg, learned counsel for respondent no.1.
Mr. Anil Dabral, learned Additional C.S.C. along with Mr. Sudhir
Kumar Nailwal, learned Standing Counsel for the State.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
By means of the present writ petition, petitioners
have approached this Court for quashing the impugned
order dated 02.07.2025 passed by learned Board of
Revenue, Dehradun Uttarakhand in Revenue Revision
No.96/2022-23, Ajay Rawat vs. Jassi Prasad & others,
annexed as annexure no.4 and thereby quashing the order
dated 08.06.2023 passed by learned court of Commissioner
Garhwal Mandal Camp, Dehradun in Revision No.15/2021-
22 Shri Jassi Prasad Bahuguna & another vs. Ajay Rawat,
annexed as annexure no.3.
2. The facts of the case shorn-off unnecessary
details are that a Revenue Suit No.06/2009-10, under
Section 209 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land
Reforms Act, 1950, Ajay Rawat vs. Jassi Prasad Bahuguna
& another was instituted by the respondent no.1. The suit
was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 28.05.2015 when
the petitioners-defendants did not appear before the
learned trial court despite service. Later on, vide judgment
and decree dated 12.12.2018, the said revenue suit was
2025:UHC:7433
decreed ex-parte against the petitioners-defendants.
Challenging the said ex-parte judgment and decree dated
12.12.2018, a Revenue Revision No.15/2018-19 was filed
by the petitioners-defendants before the court of
Commissioner, Garhwal Mandal, Camp, Dehradun. The
revision-petition was allowed vide judgment and order
dated 08.06.2023. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and
order dated 08.06.2023, passed by learned Commissioner,
Garhwal Mandal, Pauri, respondent no.1/plaintiff
challenged the said judgment and order by filing a Revenue
Revision No.96/2022-23, Ajay Rawat vs. Jassi Prasad
Bahuguna & another before the Board of Reveune,
Dehradun. The said revision filed by respondent
no.1/plaintiff was allowed by the Board of Revenue vide
judgment and order dated 02.07.2025, whereby the order
of Commissioner, Garhwal Mandal, Camp, Dehradun dated
08.06.2023 has been set-aside holding therein that the
summons were personally served upon the petitioners-
defendants and summons were also served upon them
through speed post.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners-defendants
submits that the summons has never been received by the
petitioners-defendants and the signatures of the
petitioners-defendants were forged upon the summons. He
further submits that petitioners-defendants usually sign in
Hindi, while the signatures in the summons are in English.
4. As against this, learned counsel appearing for
respondent no.1/plaintiff submits that the fact of forging
the signatures of the petitioners/defendants has never been
mentioned by the petitioners even in their revision petition
filed before the learned Commissioner, Garhwal Mandal,
Camp, Dehradun. For the first time, this ground is being
taken before this Court.
2025:UHC:7433
5. I have perused the judgment and order passed
by learned Commissioner, Garhwal Mandal as well as the
judgment and order of Board of Revenue. Since the
summons in the revenue suit were served upon the
petitioners/defendants not only personally through the
process server, but also via speed post, this Court does not
find any procedural irregularity and illegality in the
judgment and order passed by the learned Board of
Revenue. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed in-
limine.
6. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of
accordingly.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
22.08.2025
AK
