Uttarakhand High Court
Unknown vs Papendra Kumar & Another on 16 October, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition Misc. Single No.2946 of 2025
16th October, 2025
Deshpal @ Deshraj
--Petitioner
Versus
Papendra Kumar & another
--Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. M.S. Tyagi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Kailash
Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Anil Dabral, learned Additional C.S.C. along with Mr. S.K.
Nainwal, learned Standing Counsel for the State.
Mr. Bilal Ahmed, learned counsel for the caveator.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
By means of present writ petition, petitioner
has sought the following reliefs:-
"(i) A writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to
quash/set-aside the impugned judgment and order dated
20.09.2025 (annexure no.7) passed in Revision
No.197/2024-25, Deshpal @ Deshraj vs. Papendra Kumar &
another under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holding
Act, 1901, passed by learned court of Deputy Consolidation
Officer, Haridwar and order dated 03.03.2025 (annexure
no.5) passed in Appeal No.366/2020, Papendra Kumar vs.
State, under Section 11(1) of the U.P. Land Revenue Act,
1901, Village Raisi, Tehsil Laksar, District Haridwar.
(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction directing the appelalt ecourt
to firstly decide the application dated 07.02.2025 and
thereafter to decide the appeal no.366/2020, Papendra
Kumar vs. State, under Section 11(1) of the U.P. Land
Revenue Act, 1901, Village Raisi, Tehsil Laksar, District
Haridwar."
2. Brief facts of the case are that the
consolidation proceedings in Village Raisi, Tehsil Laksar,
District Haridwar, commenced in 1980. On 13.03.1991,
the Consolidation Authority passed an order in favor of
the petitioner. Respondent No.1 filed a belated objection
(it being time-barred) before the Consolidation Officer in
Case No.2742 of 1990, State vs. Bishamber, under
Section 9A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holding Act
(hereinafter "the Act"). The respondent also filed an
appeal, together with a delay-condonation application
under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, before the
Consolidation Officer, Haridwar, without impleading the
petitioner as a necessary party. That appeal was allowed
ex parte by judgment and order dated 28.01.2020. When
the petitioner came to know, he filed a restoration
application dated 13.03.2020, along with a
delay-condonation application, seeking to set aside the ex
parte order. The restoration application was allowed, and
the ex parte order was set aside by order dated
07.01.2025, restoring the appeal to its original number.
Subsequently, on 07.02.2025, the petitioner filed an
application in the said appeal requesting that the original
record of Case No.2742 of 1990 under Section 9A(2) be
sent for. However, on 03.03.2025, the Settlement Officer
(Consolidation), Haridwar-Roorkee, without considering
the said application dated 07.02.2025, directed that the
appeal be fixed for final hearing, but did not send for the
original file of the trial case. The petitioner challenged
that order of 03.03.2025 by way of a revision petition
before the learned Deputy Director of Consolidation,
Haridwar-Roorkee. The revisional court dismissed the
revision by order dated 20.09.2025, holding that the
order 03.03.2025 was interlocutory and did not affect the
substantive rights of the parties. Being aggrieved, the
petitioner is before this Court.
3. Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner
contends that the impugned judgments and orders are
arbitrary and unreasonable. He submits that the
appellate court was adamant upon deciding the appeal
without first considering the petitioner's application
dated 07.02.2025 to call for the trial record. He further
submits that the revisional court erred by affirming that
order. Both courts below, the petitioner argues,
overlooked key aspects and denied him effective hearing.
He emphasizes that the order of 13.03.1991 conferred
valuable rights in his favour, and because the appeal was
filed nearly 28 years later, the original trial record is
indispensable and must be called when deciding the
appeal on merits.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the
respondents submits that both courts below rightly
passed the impugned orders and judgments after proper
appreciation of the material record.
5. Having considered the submissions of learned
counsel for the parties and the material available on
record, this Court is of the view that the application
dated 07.02.2025, seeking the trial court record, raises a
substantive issue relevant to the just adjudication of the
appeal. The appellate court's refusal to first consider the
application to call for the record amounts to a procedural
lapse, which may prejudice the petitioner's right to a fair
hearing.
6. Accordingly, the application dated 07.02.2025
is allowed. The learned appellate authority (Consolidation
Officer/Settlement Officer) is directed to call for the
original trial court records in Case No.2742 of 1990,
State vs. Bishamber, immediately. After collection of the
records, the appeal shall be fixed for final hearing and
decided on the merits, giving due opportunity to all
parties, as per law.
7. The present writ petition is allowed to this
extent.
8. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of
accordingly.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
16.10.2025
AK
