[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
Petitioners vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 29 December, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (M/S) No.698 of 2015
29th December, 2025
Ramkali and others
--Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others
--Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Kirti Sharan Aggarwal, learned counsel for the applicant.
Mr. S.K. Nainwal, ld.S.C. for the State/respondent nos.1 to 3.
None for respondent no.4.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
Petitioner has sought quashing of order dated
13.03.2013 passed by the District Deputy Director of
Consolidation/Collector, U.S. Nagar (Annexure No.4) in
Revision No.52/04 year 2011-2012 whereby the revision
petition filed by the State was allowed and the judgment
and order dated 21.02.2000 passed by the Consolidation
Officer, Kichha in Case No.237 of 1999-2000 u/s 9A(2)
of U.P. Consolidation of Land Holdings Act has been set
aside and the land is directed to be registered in the
name of the State Govt.
2. The aforesaid order was put to challenge by the
petitioners, the legal representatives of respondent no.2
Uttam Prasad, mainly on the ground that the order has
been passed without impleading the petitioners as party
respondents in the said revision in view of death of
Uttam Prasad S/o Asha Ram , in whose favour the order
dated 21.02.2000 was passed. It is contended by learned
counsel for the petitioner that Uttam Prasad has
expired on 25.05.2004 while the order dated 21.02.2000
was challenged before the Dy. Director of
Consolidation/D.M. U.S. Nagar in Revision No.52/04
year 2011-2012, and that too, without impleading the
legal heirs of Uttam Prasad as party respondents in the
said revision. He further submits that the legal heirs of
Uttam Prasad have already been recorded in the
Khatauni. The main contention of learned counsel for
the petitioners is that the order impugned in the present
revision has been passed against a dead person and that
too without giving any opportunity of hearing to the legal
heirs of Uttam Prasad.
3. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that
summons were issued in the revision against respondent
no.1-Bhupal Singh as well as against respondent no.2-
Uttam Prasad S/o Asha Ram but the fact of death of
Uttam Prasad has not been brought in the notice of Dy.
Director of Consolidation/Collector, U.S. Nagar by the
petitioners and now they are challenging the order by
filing the present revision.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
perusal of the record, this Court is of the view that the
order impugned in the present petition is against the law
and liable to be set aside. No notice can be served upon
a dead person.
5. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Judgment and
order dated 13.02.2013 passed by the District Deputy
Consolidation Officer/Collector, U.S. Nagar in Revision
No.52/04 year 2011-2012 is hereby set aside. The
matter is remanded to the said authority to decide it
afresh after affording the opportunity of hearing to the
petitioners also who are legal heirs of late Uttam Prasad
S/o Asha Ram in accordance with law. No order as to
costs.
6. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of
accordingly.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
29.12.2025
Rdang
