Office Notes,

reports, orders or

S N L o . Date p d r ir o e c c e t e i d on in s g a s n o d r COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS

Registrar’s order with Signatures

WPMS No.2429 of 2025

Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J.

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

Mr. Sunil Chandra and Mr. Kailash Chandra, Advocates for

the petitioners.

2. Mr. Mr. Sudhir Nainwal, S.C. for the Sate.

3. Mr. Siddharth Singh, learned Advocate for the

respondent nos.1 and 2/Caveator.

4. There is a typographical error in the relief clause of the petition, as the name of the court has been inadvertently transcribed incorrectly, in the interest of justice learned counsel for the petitioners is permitted to correct it during the course of the day and to supply the amended memo of

prayer clause as per the rule today itself.

5. This writ petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, whereby the petitioner has put to challenge the order dated 25.06.2025 (annexure no.7) passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Garhwal Division, Dehradun, in Revision No.11/2024-25, Sri Yakub and another Vs. Sri Sadakat & others, under Section 219 of Land Revenue Act, 1901 (hereinafter referred to as “Act of 1901”), as well as judgment and order dated 13.01.2025 , passed in Case No.07/2024-25, Yakub Vs. Sri Sadakat & 6. It is case of the petitioner that the petitioner has to the Assistant Collector, Ist Class, Roorkee, but the said application was rejected after calling for the report vide judgment and order dated 13.01.2025. Feeling aggrieved,

the petitioner challenged the said order by filing a revision under Section 219 of Act of 1901, before the learned Additional Commissioner, Parui-Garhwal, Camp Dehradun, instead of filing an appeal as provided under Section 210 of the Act of 1901.

7. The said revision was dismissed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Parui-Garhwal, Camp Dehradun vide order dated 25.06.2025 holding that the revision is not maintainable in view of the alternate remedy of filing an appeal. Aggrieved by the both the orders the petitioner is before this Court.

8. It is submitted by learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner that Section 219 of Act of 1901, provides remedy of filing of a revision against the orders passed by the learned Assistant Collector, I^st Class, if the appeal is not filed. Since admittedly petitioner has not filed any appeal under Section 210 of Act of 1901 against the judgment and order dated 13.01.2025, passed by learned Assistant Collector, I^st Class, Roorkee. The revision can be filed by the petitioner; therefore it is argued that the observation made by learned Additional Commissioner, Dehradun, that the revision was not maintainable was totally uncalled for and unbelievable and dehors the express provision of law.

9. The aforesaid fact is not disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents.

10. In this view of the matter, judgment and order dated 25.06.2025, passed by learned Additional Commissioner, Dehradun, in Revision No.11/2024-25, Sri Yakub and another Vs. Sri Sadakat & others, is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded back to the court of learned Additional