WPMS/3348/2024
2025 Latest Caselaw 4846 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

WPMS/3348/2024 on 14 October, 2025

Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari

Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari

                                                                                     2025:UHC:9162
              Office Notes,
                 reports,
                orders or
SL.          proceedings or
      Date                                       COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.          directions and
               Registrar's
               order with
               Signatures
                              WPMS/3348/2024
                              Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.

Mr. M.S. Tyagi, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Rajesh Joshi and Mr. Ajeet Kumar Yadav, Advocates for the petitioners.

Mr. Suyash Pant, Standing Counsel for the State.

Mr. M.K. Ray, Advocate with Mr. Rajyavardhan Chaudhary, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Siddhartha Sah, Advocate for respondent No. 11 and 12.

2. Petitioner has challenged a communication dated 25.11.2024, issued by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar. The sole ground of challenge is that Sub Divisional Magistrate cannot pass an order on administrative side.

3. Mr. M.K. Ray, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 11 and 12 has referred to document enclosed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition, which is another communication dated 21.10.2024, issued by SDM, Khatima to petitioner No. 2.

4. Perusal of the said document reveals that allegation against the petitioner is that they have fabricated a Will by showing one Ms. Jogendra Kaur as dead, while she is still alive.

5. Learned State Counsel submits that by impugned communication dated 25.11.2024, petitioner was simply asked to appear before the 2025:UHC:9162 SDM, without indicating any consequences. He further submits that petitioner has not filed any application for demarcation of the land, as pleaded in the writ petition.

6. Mr. Mahavir Singh Tyagi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners has relied upon a judgment rendered by Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in Writ-C No. 20102 of 2022, decided on 11.08.2022. Para 26 and 27 of the said judgment are reproduced below:

"26. In our Constitution, there is clear separation of judicial and executive powers. The civil disputes are to be decided by the Civil Court and unsuccessful litigant has a right to file an appeal. The Administrative Officials cannot enter into any such dispute in exercise of the power conferred on them under the provisions of Cr.P.C. and the Revenue Code to fill in the gap and pass executive orders which explicitly belongs to the realms of Civil Court or the revenue court respectively. The due process of law has to be followed in all respect and the executive authorities are not supposed to usurp the power bestowed on the civil/revenue courts as it would not only be exercise of excessive jurisdiction not permissible under law but would also lead to overlapping jurisdiction which is against the tenets of the basic structure of our Constitution.

27. The present case is a glaring example of encroaching and over reaching the realm of the Civil Court on the part of the respondent-authorities. Although the respondent no. 2 has taken a stand that he was not aware of the pendency of the civil appeal, but the action of the respondent no. 2 even after submission of the reports by the revenue officials does not seem convincing to this Court from any angle. The authorities concerned ought not to have exercised administrative power for entering into the disputed property and issue order for delivery of possession etc against one or the other party. This primarily should be left to the competent court of civil jurisdiction."

2025:UHC:9162

7. The facts of the present case are entirely different. Petitioner No. 2 has been summoned simply to resolve the dispute which has been raised before the revenue authorities about transfer of land made on the basis of forged will.

8. Since there is no order adverse to the interest of petitioner passed by any of the authority and petitioner has simply been asked to have his say before the SDM, the writ petition is misconceived and is hereby dismissed.

9. Pending application (s), if any, stand disposed of.

(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 14.10.2025 Mahinder/

MAHINDER Digitally signed by MAHINDER SINGH DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=da6212e6e78d94ed3134842bc6a8d6ca168979ca7b8c2f0

SINGH 31a92d1a18b08923c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=AB77B7C5B240908B392BE84F5CDD4C2AF35DC462 6D305B1BC9EA4BABA43D2B8F, cn=MAHINDER SINGH Date: 2025.10.15 18:39:21 +05'30'