Uttarakhand High Court
Unknown vs Parasnath Singh And Another on 17 November, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
2025:UHC:10164
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition Misc. Single No. 1516 of 2013
17th November, 2025
State Of Uttarakhand through
Collector U.S. Nagar ............Petitioner
Versus
Parasnath Singh and another ...........Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Sudhir Nailwal, S.C. for the State/petitioner.
Mr. Jitendra Chaudary, Advocate for the respondents.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
This writ petition has been filed by the
State/petitioner through the learned Collector, Udham
Singh Nagar, challenging the order dated 22.02.2013
passed by the learned Additional District Magistrate
(Finance/Revenue), Deputy Director of Consolidation,
Udham Singh Nagar, in Revision No. 52/15 of 2006-07,
State of Uttarakhand vs. Parasnath Singh and another,
whereby the revision preferred by the State against the
judgment and order dated 29.01.1996 passed by the
learned Consolidation Officer, Kichha, in Case No.
857/1995-96, Parasnath Singh vs. Pothi Ram, has been
affirmed.
2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that
respondent no.1 - Parasnath Singh filed Consolidation
Case No. 857/1995-96 before the Court of the learned
Consolidation Officer under Section 9(A)(2) of the U.P.
Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, seeking a
declaration of title and rights over the property comprised
in Khata/Khatoni No. 128, Gata No. 219/2, admeasuring
0.0200 hectare, situated in Village Bandiya, Tehsil
Kichha, District Udham Singh Nagar. The suit was
2025:UHC:10164
contested by respondent no.2 - Pothi Ram, who is the
descendant of the original tenure holder. Ultimately, the
suit was decided in favour of respondent no.1 vide
judgment dated 29.01.1996. The respondent no.2 - Pothi
Ram did not challenge the said order. Instead, it was the
State Government which preferred Revision No. 52/15 of
2006-07. The revision was dismissed, and the judgment
and order dated 29.01.1996 passed by the Consolidation
Officer was affirmed. Feeling aggrieved, the State
Government has approached this Court by filing the
present writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent no.1 has
raised a preliminary objection that the writ petition is not
maintainable at the behest of the State Government
because the descendants of the original tenure holder -
Hori Lal never challenged the order dated 29.01.1996
before any forum, and hence the judgment attained
finality. It is further submitted that the State Government
had no locus to challenge the order even in revision, and
therefore, the Revisional Court was justified in holding
that the State had no right to do so. Consequently, the
revision has rightly been rejected by the learned
Additional District Magistrate (Finance/Revenue), Deputy
Director of Consolidation, Udham Singh Nagar.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the
petitioner/State has submitted that respondent no.1
could not have taken two mutually inconsistent pleas of
possession simultaneously--namely, adverse possession
on the one hand, and, on the other, a plea of possession
based on an unregistered deed dated 07.06.1974 said to
have been executed by Hori Lal, father of respondent
no.2 - Pothi Ram. It is argued that the said document
was not proved before the Consolidation Officer.
2025:UHC:10164
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties
and having perused the record in detail, this Court is of
the view that the land was transferred to respondent no.1
- Parasnath Singh by the father of respondent no.2 -
Pothi Ram through an unregistered document dated
07.06.1974, and since then respondent no.1 has been in
continuous possession of the said land.
6. As regards the argument concerning the
unregistered document, it is noted that the requirement
of compulsory registration applied w.e.f. 01.07.1977 only
if the value of the land exceeded ₹100/-.
7. It has been recorded in the order that
respondent no.2 - Pothi Ram admitted that possession of
the land in question was handed over to respondent no.1
- Parasnath by his father through an unregistered deed
dated 07.06.1974, and that he never interfered with
respondent no.1's possession thereafter.
8. Having considered the judgment and order
dated 22.02.2013 passed by the learned Additional
District Magistrate (Finance/Revenue), Deputy Director
of Consolidation, Udham Singh Nagar, in Revision No.
52/15 of 2006-07, this Court is of the view that there is
no illegality in the said judgment and order warranting
interference.
9. Accordingly, the writ petition stands
dismissed.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
17.11.2025
SK
