Amar Pal & Another ......Petitioners vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others
2026 Latest Caselaw 1997 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Amar Pal & Another ......Petitioners vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others on 16 March, 2026

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.339 of 2026
                                          Amar Pal & another                                              ......Petitioners

                                                                    Versus

                                          State of Uttarakhand & others

                                                                                                       .....Respondents
                                          Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.

Mr. Suryakant Maithani, learned counsel along with Mr. Pradeep Kumar Chauhan, learned counsel (appeared through V.C.) for the petitioners.

2. Mr. N.S. Pundir, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State/respondent nos.1, 3 & 4.

3. Mr. I.D. Paliwal, learned counsel for respondent no.2/State of U.P.

4. The writ petition has been filed by the petitioners for concluding the consolidation proceedings initiated in their village by issuance of a Notification dated 12.07.2012.

5. Since almost 11 years have elapsed, the consolidation proceedings have not been concluded. This Court, vide order dated 23.02.2026, asked the respondents to obtain instructions in the matter and to make a statement before this Court within which time the consolidation proceedings would be concluded.

6. Today, instructions are received by the State of Uttarakhand under the hand of the In-charge Settlement Officer (Consolidation), Haridwar, Roorkee, which have been passed on to this Court and the same are taken on record.

7. In the said instructions, certain reasons have been

shown that due to the non-cooperative behavior of the respondent no.2/State of U.P., the consolidation proceedings cannot be concluded, as some of the land of the village falls within the State of U.P.

8. In the said instructions, it has been stated that several correspondences have been made by the State of Uttarakhand with its counterpart in the State of U.P., but there is no cooperation or assistance on the part of the State of U.P.

9. In the instructions under the hand of Dheeraj Goswami, the Assistant Consolidation Officer, Laksar, it is submitted that the entire exercise of completing the consolidation proceedings in the village would take five years. This kind of stand is preposterous and cannot be accepted by this Court.

10. So far as the State of U.P. is concerned, no instructions have been received by the learned State Counsel for the State of U.P.

11. Let the Secretary, Revenue of the State of Uttarakhand, and the Secretary, Revenue of the State of U.P., remain present before this Court through V.C. on 25.03.2026.

12. List on 25.03.2026.

(Pankaj Purohit, J.) 16.03.2026 AK