[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
Unknown vs Mangesh Kumar And Another on 29 December, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (M/S) No.2945 of 2023
Smt. Kamlesh
......Petitioner
Versus
Mangesh Kumar and another
.........Respondents
Mr. Ankit Bisht, learned counsel i/b Mr. Himanshu Pal,
learned counsel for the petitioners.
Mr. M.S. Tyagi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Sunil
Chandra, learned counsel for respondent no.1.
Mr. K.S. Mehta, learned Addl. CSC with Mr. S.K. Nainwal,
learned S.C. for the State-respondent nos.2.
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral)
By means of this writ petition, petitioner has
sought quashing of order dated 24.08.2023 passed by
learned Deputy Director of Consolidation Haridwar in
Revision No.33 of 2023 'Smt. Kamlesh v. Mangesh Kumar
and another' whereby the said revision was dismissed.
Petitioner has also challenged the order dated
09.06.2023 passed in Appeal No.05 of 2022-23 'Mangesh
Kumar v. Smt. Kamlesh', whereby the Settlement Officer
(Consolidation) has allowed the delay condonation in the
appeal and proceeded to hear the matter on merits.
2. It is the case of petitioner that the land which
is the subject matter of the proceedings was mutated in
the revenue records in the name of petitioner on
15.02.2014 in Case No.90. The said order was challenged
by the respondents in the year 2016 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 09.06.2023, learned Settlement Officer
(Consolidation) condoned the delay of 02 years and four
months. It is feeling aggrieved by the condonation of
delay, petitioner challenged the said order in Revision
Petition being Revision No.33 of 2023 before the Deputy
Director of Consolidation/Addl. Collector (Administration)
Haridwar.
3. The main ground of challenge by the petitioner
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 02 years and
04 months could be condoned. The Deputy Director of
Consolidation by his order dated 24.08.2023 dismissed
the revision and affirmed the order passed by the
Settlement Officer Consolidation whereby the delay was
condoned. Hence this petition.
4. It is contended by learned Counsel for the
petitioner that the learned Deputy Director of
Consolidation/Addl. Collector (Administration) Haridwar
has dismissed the revision petition outrightly and
affirmed the order condoning the delay.
5. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the respondent no.1 has argued that the
Deputy Director of Consolidation/Addl. Collector
(Administration) Haridwar while dismissing the revision
has clearly gave a finding of fact that the Settlement
Officer Consolidation gave proper opportunity of hearing
to the parties. Moreover, learned Dy. Director of
Consolidation too has passed the order in accordance
with law after hearing both the parties. It needs to be
mentioned that only the delay has been condoned in
filing the appeal which order has been affirmed by the
Revisional Court.
6. Having heard the learned Counsel for the
parties and after going through the record, there is no
illegality or irregularity in the impugned orders. The
findings recorded are the concurrent ones which do not
require any interference by this Court.
7. The petition lacks merit and the same is
dismissed. Parties are directed to appear before the
concerned Court for deciding the case on merits as per
law.
8. Interim order dated 18.10.2023 is hereby
vacated.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
29.12.2025
Rdang
