Uttarakhand High Court
Smt. Nanda Subba vs Smt. Leela Devi on 10 October, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition Misc. Single No.2752 of 2013
10th October, 2025
Smt. Nanda Subba --Petitioner
Versus
Smt. Leela Devi --Respondent
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Yash Bisht, learned counsel i/b Mr. Vikas
Bahuguna, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Ms. Arushi Batra, learned counsel i/b Mr. Piyush Garg,
learned counsel for the respondent.
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral)
By means of the present writ petition,
petitioner has challenged the judgment and order dated
11.10.2013 passed by the Board of Revenue, in Revision
No.29 of 2012-13 Nanda Subba v. Leela Devi and
another u/s 219 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 and
order dated 27.11.2012 and 02.07.2012 passed by the
Additional Collector, Dehradun in Suit No.02/2009-10
u/s 201 of the said Act.
2. The brief facts of the case are that by order
dated 18.07.2006, the petitioner's name was mutated in
revenue record on the basis of lease deed dated
13.05.1988 executed her deceased husband on the
subject land. The respondent moved an application
seeking recall of order dated 18.07.2006 asserting that it
was an ex parte order. The said application was rejected
by the Additional Tehsildar, Dehradun on 20.06.2007.
Feeling aggrieved, respondent preferred Revision No.10/
2008 before the Collector which was transferred to
Additional Collector (Admin.) Dehradun, who, by his
order dated 16.04.2009, allowed the revision. Petitioner
moved an application u/s 201 of the Act along with the
application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act. The said
application of the petitioner was decided on 02.07.2012
giving finding to the effect that the order dated
16.04.2009 was not an ex parte order as both parties
had knowledge of the said date. On 3.7.2012, petitioner
moved the restoration application whereupon the effect
of order dated 02.07.2012 was stayed. By order dated
27.11.2012, the Additional Collector decided the
application of petitioner moved u/s 201 of the Act.
Against the order dated 27.11.2012 passed by the
Additional Collector, Dehradun, petitioner preferred
revision under Section 219 of the Act before the Board of
Revenue which was registered as Revision No.29 of
2012-13. However, Board of Revenue also dismissed the
revision. Challenging these orders, present petition has
been filed.
3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of
the respondent wherein all the allegations of the writ
petition have been denied and the orders passed by the
Board of Revenue and Additional Collector have been
supported.
4. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties
and gone through the entire material on record.
5. By both the impugned orders dated
02.07.2012 and 27.11.2012 passed by the Additional
Collector (Admin.), the matter was remanded back to
the Court of Additional Tehsildar for hearing on merits
of the case and date was fixed for appearance of the
parties before Additional Tehsildar. Thus, there is
nothing wrong in both the orders and, therefore,
revisional Court did nothing wrong in rejecting the
revision no.29 of 2012-2013.
6. In view of the above, the present writ petition
fails and is accordingly dismissed. The parties are
directed to appear before the learned Additional
Tehsildar on 28.10.2025 who shall decide the case on
merits as per law.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
10.10.2025
Rdang
