HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Writ Petition Misc. Single No.1275 of 2011

25 September, 2025

Nirmal Pal --Petitioner

Versus

Up Sanchalak Chakbandi and Ors. --Respondents ----------------------------------------------------------------------

Presence:-

Mr. T.A. Khan, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr.

Vinay Bhatt, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Ms. Mamta Bisht, learned D.A.G. and Mr. K.S. Mehta, learned Additional C.S.C. with Mr. Devendra Pant,

learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand.

None for the legal heirs of respondent No.4.

Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral)

By means of the present writ petition,

petitioner has challenged the order dated 27.07.1992 passed by respondent No.3-Consolidation Officer, Kichha, District Udham Singh Nagar as well as the order dated 30.03.2011 passed by respondent No.1-Upsanchalak Chakbandi/Additional District Magistrate, Udham Singh

Nagar in Case No.52/05 of 2004-05.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the father of petitioner Kallu had purchased a land Gata No.1065 area 5 Begha, Gata No.1074/1 area 2 Bigha 5 Visha, total area 7 Begha 5 Visha, Chak No.245 of present Khatoni No.213 (New Khatoni No.1006 area 0.3687 Hectare) through a registered sale deed from original Bhumidhar Ram Charan, Nathu Ram@ Nathua, S/o Late Beni Ram, on 23.07.1984 and taken possession. The said land was not in the name of petitioner’s father in the year 1980 when the will was made in favour of the respondent No.4, who illegally mutated abovementioned disputed land in his name by producing a forged will

dated 10.03.1980 before respondent No.3 in Suit No.30 of 1992 Firasat Khan Vs. Kallu, before the respondent No.3 and the order of mutation was made by him vide order dated 28.07.1992. The petitioner came to know about the mutation order dated 28.07.1992 on 06.10.2004 at the time of taking of Khatoni from Lekhpal. Thereafter, petitioner filed an appeal being Appeal No.256 of 2004 Nirmal Pal Vs. Firasat Khan and Ors., before respondent No.2-Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Udham Singh Nagar, which was allowed vide order dated 08.12.2004. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 08.12.2004, respondent No.4 filed a revision being Revision No.52 of 2004-05, before the respondent No.1, which was allowed on 21.10.2005, on the basis of forged compromise filed by respondent No.4. Thereafter, petitioner filed a writ petition (M/S) No.1560 of 2005, which was disposed of vide order dated 10.07.2006 with a direction to petitioner to move recall application for recalling the order dated 21.10.2005. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the recall application for recalling the order dated 21.10.2005 before the respondent No.1, which was rejected vide order dated 30.03.2011 on the ground that the review was not maintainable. Thus, feeling aggrieved, petitioner is before this Court.

3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the order dated 21.10.2005 in Revision No.52 of 2004-05 was passed on the basis of a forged compromise as the petitioner did not entered into any compromise with respondent No.4. He further submits that the father of petitioner Late Kallu belonged to Scheduled Caste, whose property cannot be transferred in the name of respondent No.4 by way of will.

4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner contends that the disputed land was not in the name of Late Kallu (father of the petitioner) in 1980, by whom no will could be made in favour of the respondent No.4, who produced forged will dated 10.03.1980 before respondent No.3, who has not applied his mind in giving the judgment in favour of the respondent No.4.

5. Learned State Counsel on the basis of counter affidavit submits that respondent No.1 has rightly rejected the recall application of the petitioner. She further submits that the order dated 21.10.2005 has been passed on the basis of mutual compromise which was verified by Notary.

6. Learned State Counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to a judgment dated 09.09.2025 passed by this Court in W