Uttarakhand High Court
Chander Singh Bhakuni And Another ... vs Nagar Palika Parishad And Others on 3 July, 2025
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition No. 2015 of 2024 (M/S)
Chander Singh Bhakuni and another .......Petitioners
Versus
Nagar Palika Parishad and others .....Respondents
Present:-
Mr. M.S. Pal, Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Medha Pande, Advocate for
the petitioners.
Mr. Bhupendra Singh Bisht, Advocate for the respondent no. 1.
JUDGMENT
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
It is the case of the petitioners that late Sri R.D. Upreti
had purchased a property in Mankapur Compound, Mallital, District
Nainital in the year 1995. He expired on 14.08.2010. He left the
petitioners and the respondent nos. 2, to 5 as legal heirs. After the
death of Sri R.D. Upreti, the respondent nos. 2 & 3 made a
representation before the Nagar Palika Parishad, Nainital, which was
allowed. When the petitioners came to know about it, they moved an
application before the Nagar Palika Parishad, Nainital submitting that
their signatures have been forged by the respondent nos. 2 & 3. But,
the Nagar Palika Parishad directed the petitioners to approach the
concerned court. Thereafter, the petitioners preferred Nagar Palika
Appeal No. 04 of 2012, Smt. Sheela Bhakuni v. Nagar Palika Parishad,
Nainital and others, before the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Nainital ("the appeal"). The appeal was decided on 28.02.2012
remanding the matter back to the Nagar Palika Parishad, Nainital, but
till date no decision has been taken and the petitioner no. 1 has been
required to submit a succession certificate. It is the case of the
petitioners that succession certificate does not relate to individual
property. Therefore, petition has been filed for quashing of the order
dated 01.03.2024 passed by the respondent no. 1, by which the
petitioner no. 1 was directed to produce the succession certificate, as
well as for seeking direction to the respondent no. 1 to decide the case
pending before the respondent no. 1 with regard to mutation.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
3. Counter affidavit has already been filed on behalf of the
respondent no. 1.
4. It is the case of the respondent Nagar Palika that till date
the Nagar Palika has not taken any decision in the matter and with
regard to forgery of the documents, the matter is pending in the court.
5. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submits that
the directions may be issued to the Nagar Palika Parishad, Nainital to
decide the matter expeditiously.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent Nagar Palika gives a
statement that within a month, the mutation case will be decided by
the Nagar Palika. He also submits that need of succession certificate
will also be considered by the Nagar Palika while deciding the matter.
7. The Court takes on record the statement given by the
learned counsel for the respondent Nagar Palika.
8. The writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the
Executive Engineer, Nagar Palika Parishad, Nainital to decide the
mutation case, which in the appeal was remanded on 28.02.2024 by
the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nainital, within a period of one month
from today.
(Ravindra Maithani, J)
03.07.2025
Avneet/
