[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
3 December vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others on 3 December, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
2025:UHC:10761
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition Misc. Single No. 810 of 2024
03 December, 2025
Mehmood Khan
--Petitioner
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand & others
--Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. M.C. Kandpal, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Devesh
Kandpal, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Devendra Pant, learned Standing Counsel for the State.
Mr. Yogesh Pandey, learned counsel for respondent nos.3 to 6.
None appears for the respondent-Gram Sabha.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral)
By means of present writ petition, petitioner
has put to challenge the order dated 28.12.2023, passed
by Board of Revenue, whereby the revision-petition filed
by respondent nos.3 to 6 was allowed and the matter was
remanded back to the Additional Commissioner, Kumaon
Division, Nainital.
2. The facts of the case, which resulted in the
filing of the revenue revision by respondent nos. 3 to 6,
are that an appeal was filed by the petitioner before the
Additional Commissioner, Kumaon Division, Nainital,
against the judgment and decree dated 24.01.2013
passed by the Assistant Collector, First Class, Kashipur,
District Udham Singh Nagar, in Revenue Suit No.22 of 98
of 1991-92, Gulam Hussain & Others vs. Ramesh
Chandra & Others.
2025:UHC:10761
3. Admittedly, the said appeal filed by the
petitioner was barred by limitation, and an application
for condonation of delay was filed along with the first
appeal. The appeal was decided by the learned Additional
Commissioner, Kumaon Division, Nainital, vide judgment
and order dated 29.09.2015. This order was challenged
by respondent nos. 3 to 6 by filing a revision petition
before the Board of Revenue, registered as Revenue
Revision No. 135 of 2015-16, Gulam Hussain & Others
vs. Mehmood Kha & Others. The main ground for
challenging the judgment and order passed by the First
Appellate Court was that the appeal had been allowed by
the learned Additional Commissioner without considering
the delay condonation application. Therefore, the order
was argued to be bad in law, unsustainable, and liable to
be set aside. The revision was allowed, and the matter
was remanded back to the First Appellate Court by
judgment and order dated 28.12.2023, which is
impugned in the present writ petition.
4. It is contended by the learned Senior Advocate
appearing for the petitioner that consolidation
proceedings were initiated in Village Beljuri, District
Kashipur, w.e.f. 23.12.1997, and the suit was filed by
respondent nos. 3 to 6 in the year 1999. Therefore, the
suit was not maintainable in view of the bar contained in
Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act,
1953.
5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for
respondent nos. 3 to 6 disputed this fact, stating that the
suit was filed in the year 1991-92 and not in the year
1998-99. He submitted that the number was later
changed, as it is a common practice in the revenue
courts to renumber original revenue suits and other
2025:UHC:10761
proceedings.
6. Be that as it may, the question of
maintainability of the revenue suit is the subject matter
of the first appeal, which was decided without
considering the delay condonation application by the
learned Additional Commissioner, Kumaon Division,
Nainital. Therefore, it is open to the petitioner to raise
these submissions before the First Appellate Court. Since
the matter has only been remanded back to the First
Appellate Court to decide the appeal after considering the
delay condonation application, this Court does not find
any illegality or impropriety in the impugned order.
7. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. The
order dated 28.12.2023 passed by the Board of Revenue
is hereby affirmed.
8. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of
accordingly.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
03.12.2025
AK
