##PAGE1##

Office Notes, reports,

orders or proceedings or

SL.

Date directions and COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS

No

Registrar’s order with

Signatures

WPMS No.3597 of 2025

Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J.

Mr. Aditya Singh, learned counsel for

petitioners-defendants.

2. Mr. Prashant Trivedi, learned counsel

for respondent-plaintiff, through V.C.

3. By means of present writ petition,

petitioners-defendants have challenged

the order dated 14.11.2025 passed by

learned Assistant Collector First Class,

Rishikesh, in Case No.05 of 2023 Govind

Prasad Bahaguna Vs. Harimohan Gulati

and Ors.; as well as the order dated

15.12.2025 passed by learned Board of

Revenue in Land Revenue Revision No.3

of 2025-26 Harimohan Vs. Govind Prasad

and Ors., whereby, the revision petition

filed by the petitioners was rejected.

4. It is the contention of learned

counsel for petitioners that controversy

arose on filing of an application of the

respondent under Section 41 of the U.P.

Land Revenue Act, 1901, for demarcation

of the land in-question comprised in

Khasra No.276/49. The said application

was allowed by the learned Assistant

Collector vide order dated 14.11.2025.

The said order was challenged by the

petitioners by filing the Land Revenue

Revision No.3 of 2025-26. The said

revision met with the same fate as the

revision petition was dismissed.

5. It is the case of petitioners that issue

of demarcation of the aforesaid land has

already been settled by the learned Civil

Court in Original Suit No.231 of 1979

Sohan Lal and another Vs. Mehar Chand,

whereby, the suit was dismissed and first

appeal, second appeal and SLP also got

dismissed by the different Forums. Issue

No.1 in the said suit was framed with

regard to the fact as to whether plaintiffs

are owner of plot No.276/49 or 276/6/37.

This issue was decided in favour of the

defendant and consequently, suit was

dismissed.

6. It is contended by learned counsel for

petitioners that by making a fresh

application under Section 41 of the U.P.

Land Revenue Act, the matter is being re-

agitated by respondent and learned Trial

Court as well as learned Revisional Court

fell into error of law and facts, while

ignoring this vital issue involved in the

matter.

7. Per contra, it is contended by learned

counsel for respondent that after finality

of the decree passed by learned Civil

Court and even at the stage of SLP, writ

petition (M/S) No.2007 of 2008

Harimohan and Ors. Vs. Sohan Lal and

Ors., has been filed by the petitioners

and in that writ petition, order was

passed for demarcation on the land of

petitioners by filing application before the

appropriate authority.

8. Be that as it may, once the matter

2

has been settled and attained finality, this

Court is in doubt as to whether the order

should have been passed in the writ court

or not. For the said purpose, the matter

requires deliberation, for which counter

affidavit is required.

9. Respondent is directed to file counter

affidavit within six weeks.

10. Put up on 06.04.2026.

11. In the meantime, the effect and

operation of order dated 14.11.2025

passed by learned Assistant Collector

First Class, Rishikesh, in Case No.05 of

2023 Govind Prasad Bahaguna Vs.

Harimohan Gulati and Ors., and order

dated 15.12.2025 passed by learned

Board of Revenue in Land Revenue

Revision No.3 of 2025-26 Harimohan Vs.

Govind Prasad and Ors., shall remain

stayed. Parties are directed to maintain

status quo with regard to the land in-

question comprised in Khasra No.276/49,

till next date of listing.

12. Stay Application (IA/1/2025) stands

disposed of.

(Pankaj Purohit, J.)

24.12.2025

PN

3