##PAGE1##

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Writ Petition (M/S) No.2235 of 2025

Smt. Sukhvinder Kaur & another

……Petitioners

Versus

Dy. Director Consolidation and others

………Respondents

Mr. Himanshu Pal, learned counsel for the petitioners.

Mr. S.K. Nainwal, learned S.C. for the State-respondent nos.1

and 3.

Mr. M.S. Tyagi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Sunil

Chandra, learned counsel for respondent no.2.

Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral)

By means of this writ petition, petitioners have

sought quashing of order dated 24.05.2025 passed by

learned Deputy Director of Consolidation Haridwar in

Revision No.172 of 2024-25 ‘Sukhwinder Kaur and

another v. Smt. Bala’ and Revision No.173 of 2024-25

‘Sukhvinder Kaur and another v. State and another’

whereby those revisions were dismissed. Petitioner has

also challenged the separate orders dated 29.08.2023

passed in Appeal No.05 of 2010 ‘Smt. Bala v. Sukhvinder

and another’ and in Appeal No.10 of 2011 ‘State v. Smt.

Lallit and others’, whereby the Settlement Officer

(Consolidation) has allowed the delay condonation in

both the appeals and proceeded to hear the matter on

merits.

2. It is the case of petitioners that the land which

is the subject matter of the proceedings was mutated in

the revenue records in the name of petitioners on

20.06.1994. The said order was challenged by the

respondents in the year 2010 by filing an appeal under

Section 11(1) of the U.P. Consolidation of Land Holdings

1

Act, 1953 before the Settlement Officer (Consolidation)

Camp Roorkee. By reason of judgment dated 15.12.2011,

learned Settlement Officer (Consolidation) condoned the

delay of 16 years. It is feeling aggrieved by the

condonation of delay, petitioners challenged the said

order in Revision Petitions being Revision No.16 of 2017-

18 and Revision No.15 of 2017-18 before the Deputy

Director of Consolidation/Addl. District Magistrate

(Administration) Haridwar.

3. The main ground of challenge by the

petitioners in the revisional Court was that the learned

Settlement Officer (Consolidation), while condoning the

delay, has not given any reason as to why the delay of 16

years could be condoned. The Deputy Director of

Consolidation by his order dated 11.03.2019 allowed the

revisions and remanded the matter to the Settlement

Officer Consolidation Haridwar with the direction to pass

the reasoned order on the delay condonation application

and after providing opportunity of hearing to both the

parties.

4. After remand of case, learned Settlement

Officer Consolidation Haridwar by his orders dated

29.08.2023 again allowed the delay condonation

application and condoned the delay. Feeling aggrieved,

again Revision Nos.172 of 2024-25 and 173 of 2024-25

were filed, and those revisions have been dismissed by

learned Deputy Director of Consolidation, Haridwar by

reason of judgment and order dated 24.05.2025. Hence

this petition.

5. It is contended by learned Counsel for the

petitioners that even this time round, no explanation for

condoning the delay has been offered by the appellate

authority and the delay has been condoned.

2

6. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel

appearing for respondent no.2 submits that by the

impugned order dated 24.05.2025, delay has rightly been

condoned. He also brought a fact to the notice of the

Court that one appeal has been filed by the State of

Uttarakhand being Appeal No.242 ‘State v. Musammat

Lalli and others’ against the mutation order dated

20.06.1994 in which impleadment application dated

22.09.2012 has been allowed and respondent no.2- Smt.

Bala W/o Munnu Ram has been impleaded as a

necessary party in the aforesaid case.

7. It is argued by learned Senior Counsel for

respondent no.2 that even if the delay is not condoned,

the State appeal, wherein respondent no.2 has been

impleaded as a necessary party, would be given

opportunity of hearing, and therefore, no prejudice has

been caused to the petitioners.

8. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties

and having perused the facts of the case, this Court is of

the view that after cond