[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
Petitioners vs Dy. Director Consolidation And Others on 23 December, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (M/S) No.2235 of 2025
Smt. Sukhvinder Kaur & another
......Petitioners
Versus
Dy. Director Consolidation and others
.........Respondents
Mr. Himanshu Pal, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Mr. S.K. Nainwal, learned S.C. for the State-respondent nos.1
and 3.
Mr. M.S. Tyagi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Sunil
Chandra, learned counsel for respondent no.2.
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral)
By means of this writ petition, petitioners have
sought quashing of order dated 24.05.2025 passed by
learned Deputy Director of Consolidation Haridwar in
Revision No.172 of 2024-25 'Sukhwinder Kaur and
another v. Smt. Bala' and Revision No.173 of 2024-25
'Sukhvinder Kaur and another v. State and another'
whereby those revisions were dismissed. Petitioner has
also challenged the separate orders dated 29.08.2023
passed in Appeal No.05 of 2010 'Smt. Bala v. Sukhvinder
and another' and in Appeal No.10 of 2011 'State v. Smt.
Lallit and others', whereby the Settlement Officer
(Consolidation) has allowed the delay condonation in
both the appeals and proceeded to hear the matter on
merits.
2. It is the case of petitioners that the land which
is the subject matter of the proceedings was mutated in
the revenue records in the name of petitioners on
20.06.1994. The said order was challenged by the
respondents in the year 2010 by filing an appeal under
Section 11(1) of the U.P. Consolidation of Land Holdings
Act, 1953 before the Settlement Officer (Consolidation)
Camp Roorkee. By reason of judgment dated 15.12.2011,
learned Settlement Officer (Consolidation) condoned the
delay of 16 years. It is feeling aggrieved by the
condonation of delay, petitioners challenged the said
order in Revision Petitions being Revision No.16 of 2017-
18 and Revision No.15 of 2017-18 before the Deputy
Director of Consolidation/Addl. District Magistrate
(Administration) Haridwar.
3. The main ground of challenge by the
petitioners in the revisional Court was that the learned
Settlement Officer (Consolidation), while condoning the
delay, has not given any reason as to why the delay of 16
years could be condoned. The Deputy Director of
Consolidation by his order dated 11.03.2019 allowed the
revisions and remanded the matter to the Settlement
Officer Consolidation Haridwar with the direction to pass
the reasoned order on the delay condonation application
and after providing opportunity of hearing to both the
parties.
4. After remand of case, learned Settlement
Officer Consolidation Haridwar by his orders dated
29.08.2023 again allowed the delay condonation
application and condoned the delay. Feeling aggrieved,
again Revision Nos.172 of 2024-25 and 173 of 2024-25
were filed, and those revisions have been dismissed by
learned Deputy Director of Consolidation, Haridwar by
reason of judgment and order dated 24.05.2025. Hence
this petition.
5. It is contended by learned Counsel for the
petitioners that even this time round, no explanation for
condoning the delay has been offered by the appellate
authority and the delay has been condoned.
6. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for respondent no.2 submits that by the
impugned order dated 24.05.2025, delay has rightly been
condoned. He also brought a fact to the notice of the
Court that one appeal has been filed by the State of
Uttarakhand being Appeal No.242 'State v. Musammat
Lalli and others' against the mutation order dated
20.06.1994 in which impleadment application dated
22.09.2012 has been allowed and respondent no.2- Smt.
Bala W/o Munnu Ram has been impleaded as a
necessary party in the aforesaid case.
7. It is argued by learned Senior Counsel for
respondent no.2 that even if the delay is not condoned,
the State appeal, wherein respondent no.2 has been
impleaded as a necessary party, would be given
opportunity of hearing, and therefore, no prejudice has
been caused to the petitioners.
8. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties
and having perused the facts of the case, this Court is of
the view that after condoning the delay, the matter would
be heard and decided on merits and that too after
hearing the parties. Therefore, it cannot be said that any
prejudice has been caused to the petitioners if the
petitioners are heard on merits.
9. In such view of the matter, no ground for
interference is made out. The writ petition fails and the
same is hereby dismissed.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
23.12.2025
Rdang
