Uttarakhand High Court
Unknown vs Vimla Devi And Others on 11 November, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
2025:UHC:9910
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (M/S) No.3097 of 2025
11th November, 2025
Charan Singh and others .........Petitioners
Versus
Vimla Devi and others ..........Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Jitendra Chaudhary and Ms. Mansi Chauhan, Advocate for the
petitioners.
Mr. Shobhit Saharia, Advocate for the Caveator/respondent nos.1
to 3-plaintiff.
Mr. Sudhir Nainwal, S.C. for the State/respondent nos.7 and 9.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
This writ petition has been filed under Article
227 of the Constitution of India whereby the petitioners
have put to challenge the notice dated 30.10.2025 issued
by respondent no.9 - Tehsildar, Gadarpur, Udham Singh
Nagar, whereby the respondent nos.1 to 3-plaintiffs want to
execute the judgment and decree dated 30.08.2025, passed
by learned Assistant Collector, Ist Class/Sub-Divisional
Magistrate, Bajpur, Udham Singh Nagar in Revenue Suit
No.22/15 of 2015-16, Smt. Vimla Devi and others Vs.
Charan Singh and others.
2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the
petitioners-defendants that a revenue suit was filed by the
respondent nos.1 to 3-plaintiff against the petitioners-
defendants in the court of learned Assistant Collector, Ist
Class/Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bazpur, Udham Singh
Nagar under Section 229-B r/w Section 209 of U.P.Z.A.
and L.R. Act, 1901.
3. Admittedly the suit was decreed by reason of
the judgment and decree dated 30.08.2025 and the
petitioners-defendants were directed to vacate and
handover the property to the respondent nos.1 to 3-
2025:UHC:9910
plaintiffs.
4. Instead of putting this judgment and decree into
execution, as per law, as provided under Section 209 of
U.P.L.R. Act, 1901 r/w Section 341 of U.P.Z.A. and L.R.
Act, impugned notice has been issued by respondent no.9
-Tehsildar, whereby the petitioners-defendants were
threatened to vacate the suit property. It is feeling
aggrieved the petitioners-defendants are before this Court.
5. It is contended by counsel for the petitioners-
defendants that such a practice cannot be adopted;
instead the respondent nos.1 to 3-plaintiffs should have
put the decree into execution, in accordance with law. The
notice impugned in the present writ petition is totally
without jurisdiction, illegal and deserves to be set aside by
this Court.
6. It is informed by counsel for the petitioners-
defendants that the said decree against them was
challenged by the petitioners-defendants by filing a Z.A.
Appeal No.138 of 2024-25, Charan Singh and others Vs.
Vimla Devi and others, in the court of learned
Commissioner, Kumaon Division, Nainital, which is still
pending.
7. In the said first appeal the stay application
moved by the petitioners-defendants for stay of the
judgment and decree was rejected and a revision petition
is also pending disposal before the Board of Revenue
against rejection of the stay application.
8. It appears that encouraged by the fact that there
is no stay order against the judgment and decree dated
30.08.2025, respondent no.9 - Tehsildar issued a notice
which is abruptly against law.
9. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent nos.1
to 3-plaintiff submits that perhaps the notice impugned in
the present writ petition has been issued by the respondent
2025:UHC:9910
no.9 - Tehsildar after reading the operative portion of the
aforesaid judgment and decree and even the respondent
nos.1 and 3-plaintiffs are not instrumental in that.
10. Be that as it may. There is a procedure
prescribed for execution of the decree passed by the
Revenue Court under Section 209 of Land Revenue Act,
1901, r/w Section 341 of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, which says
that the decree of the Revenue Court shall be executable,
as per law, as a decree passed by the Civil Court. Notice
impugned in the present writ petition appears to be illegal
and without jurisdiction and the same is liable to be
quashed.
11. Accordingly writ petition stands allowed. Notice
dated 30.10.2025 (annexure no.1) is hereby quashed.
12. However it is need not mention that that the
respondent nos.1 to 3-plaintiff is always at liberty to put
the decree in execution as per law.
13. The Board of Revenue is directed to expedite
hearing and disposal of the Revenue Suit No.22/15 of
2015-16, Smt. Vimla Devi and others Vs. Charan Singh and
others, within a period of one month from the date of
production of certified copy of this order.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
11.11.2025
SK
