Uttarakhand High Court
Soni & Another vs Harmahendra Singh & Others on 22 September, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
Office Notes, reports,
SL. orders or proceedings or
Date COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No directions and Registrar's
order with Signatures
WPMS No.2741 of 2025
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
Mr. Suryakant Maithani, learned counsel for the
petitioners.
2. Mr. Bhuwan Bhatt, learned counsel for respondent
nos.1 & 2.
3. Mr. S.K. Nainwal, learned Standing Counsel for the
State/respondent no.7.
4. By means of the present writ petition, petitioners have
put to challenge the order dated 07.11.2023 passed by
Assistant Collector, 1st Class, Parganadhikari, Sadar,
Dehradun in Revenue Suit No.13 of 2021-22, Jagjeet Singh
Soni & another vs. Harmahendra Singh & others, whereby the
petitioners' suit was dismissed as not maintainable as well as
the order dated 04.08.2025 passed by Board of Revenue,
Uttarakhand Dehradun in Revision No.03 of 2023-2024,
Jagjeet Singh Soni vs. Harmahendra Singh & others, whereby
the revision filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs against the
aforesaid dismissal was rejected and further the order dated
19.08.2025 passed in Review Petition No.06/2024-25,
whereby the petitioners' review was also dismissed.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs contends
that a revenue suit under Section 229B/176 of the U.P.
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 was
instituted before the Court of the Assistant Collector, 1st
Class, Sadar, Dehradun, seeking a declaration of the
petitioners/plaintiffs as Bhumidhar and for partition of the
property in question. The said suit was dismissed by the
learned Assistant Collector, 1st Class, vide judgment and
order dated 07.11.2023, on the ground that the
petitioners/plaintiffs were not recorded as Bhumidhar of the
land involved in the revenue suit, and therefore, the suit was
not maintainable. Aggrieved by the said order, the
petitioners/plaintiffs preferred a revision, which also met the
same fate and was dismissed.
6. According to this Court, the suit can only be decided
after framing issues between the parties and recording
evidence as to whether the property in question is a joint
property of the petitioners and the contesting defendants.
Thus, prima facie, in the opinion of this Court, the suit ought
not to have been dismissed in such a manner.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties, this court is of
the view that matter requires some deliberation.
8. Issue notice to the respondent nos.3, 4, 5, 6 & 8,
returnable within six weeks.
9. Steps to be taken within three days.
10. List on 26.11.2025.
11. Respondents may file the counter affidavit within six
weeks.
12. In the meantime, it is directed that the parties shall
maintain the status quo with regard to the possession of the
property in question, and no third-party interest shall be
created in the said property.
13. Interim relief application (IA No.1/2025) stands
disposed of accordingly.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
22.09.2025
AK
