Uttarakhand High Court
9 November vs State Of Uttarakhand And Ors on 19 November, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
2025:UHC:10241
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition Misc. Single No. 3177 of 2025
19 November, 2025
Arun Kumar Sati --Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Ors. --Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. M.S. Tyagi, learned senior counsel assisted
by Mr. Sunil Chandra, learned counsel for
petitioner.
Mr. Sudhir Kumar Nailwal, learned Standing
Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand/respondent
No.1.
Mr. V.D. Bisen, learned counsel for respondent
No.2-Gram Sabha.
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral)
By means of the present writ petition under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has
put to challenge the order dated 29.07.2025
(Annexure No.14 to the writ petition) passed by
learned Director of Consolidation, Dehradun, in
Revision No.34 of 2025 Arun Kumar Sati Vs. State of
Uttarakhand and Others, whereby, the revision
petition filed by the petitioner-Arun Kumar Sati was
dismissed on the ground of maintainability as the
second revision filed before it was not maintainable,
as well as judgment and order dated 21.04.2025
(Annexure No.13 to the writ petition) passed by
learned Deputy Director of Consolidation/Collector,
Haridwar in Revision (SIC Suit) No.17 of 2023-24
Gram Sabha Dabki Kala Vs. Sausingh And Others,
2025:UHC:10241
whereby, the revision petition filed by the respondent
No.2-Gram Sabha Dabki Kala, has been allowed and
judgment and order passed by learned Appellate
Court i.e. Settlement Officer of Consolidation (SOC),
was set aside, whereby, learned Appellate Authority
i.e. Settlement Officer of Consolidation (SOC), has
allowed the appeal and remanded the matter back to
learned Consolidation Officer for consideration afresh.
2. It is contended by learned senior counsel
for the petitioner that the order dated 21.04.2025
passed by the learned Director of Consolidation/
Collector, Haridwar, is totally perverse and illegal
simply for the reason that the said order was passed
against the order by which the matter was only
remanded back to learned Consolidation Officer for
reconsideration afresh.
3. Per contra, learned State Counsel
supported the judgment and order passed in
Revision (SIC Suit) No.17 of 2023-24 Gram Sabha
Dabki Kala Vs. Sausingh And Others.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the
parties and having gone through the orders
impugned in the present writ petition, this Court is of
the view that the learned Appellate Authority has
committed no illegality by remanding the matter to
the learned Consolidation Officer to decide Case
No.396 Smt. Usha Panwar Vs. State, afresh, vide
order dated 18.10.2023, therefore, judgment and
order dated 21.04.2025 appears to be in excess of
the jurisdiction vested with the Revisional Authority.
2025:UHC:10241
5. In view of the above, the present writ
petition is allowed. Judgment and order dated
21.04.2025 passed by learned Deputy Director of
Consolidation/Collector, Haridwar in Revision (SIC
Suit) No.17 of 2023-24 Gram Sabha Dabki Kala Vs.
Sausingh And Others, is hereby set aside. The
judgment and order passed by learned Appellate
Authority is revived. Learned Trial Court i.e.
Consolidation Officer shall hear the matter afresh
after hearing both the parties concerned and decide
the same expeditiously in accordance with law.
Judgment and order dated 29.07.2025 passed by
learned Director of Consolidation, Dehradun, passed
in Revision No.34 of 2025 Arun Kumar Sati Vs. State
of Uttarakhand and Others, needs no interference
and therefore, the same is upheld.
6. Pending application(s), if any, stands
disposed of.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
19.11.2025
PN
