HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Writ Petition Misc. Single No. 1182 of 2018

16th October, 2025

Padmendra Singh ………….Petitioner

Versus

Chairman Board of Revenue,

Uttarakhand ………..Respondents ----------------------------------------------------------------------

Presence:-

Mr. Rajesh Pandey, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. R.C. Joshi, B.H. for the State/respondent nos.1 to 3.

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

Chandra, Advocate for respondent no.4.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.

This writ petition is filed under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India by the petitioner by which he has

sought the following reliefs:-

“i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the records and quash the impugned order dated 06.04.2018, passed by learned Board of Revenue in Revision No.91/2007-08, Bihari Lal

S/o Kirti ram Vs. Padmendra Singh S/o Sunder Singh.

ii. Issue a suitable rule order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.4 not to create any third party interest over the land in

dispute having Khasra No.3747, 3748 and 3749.”

2. The facts in brief are that the petitioner alleges that the predecessors in interest of the petitioner were the hissedar of Plot No.3148 measuring 5 naali, 13 mutthi of the ibatasan settlement Khata No.7 and the perusal of the records would clearly show that Kuta s/o Thuni was recorded as Sirtan of the aforesaid land. Thereafter the new settlement Plot No.3747, 3748 and 3749 were carved out from the aforesaid Plot No.3148. Respondent no.4 made an application for correction of records before the court of learned Tehsildar Pauri-Garhwal with a prayer that Plot Nos.3747, 3748 and 3749 are entered both in Khata

Khatoni Nos.111 and 142, therefore they may be deleted from Khata Khatoni No.111. The aforesaid matter was registered as Correction Case No.45/85-86, Bihari Lal Vs. Padmendra Singh. The aforesaid case was rejected by learned Tehsildar, Pauri-Garhwal vide order dated 11.02.1987 on the ground that even after several opportunities the respondent failed to bring original settlement records. No legal remedy was availed by respondent no.4 against the aforesaid order. Hence the order became final, but respondent no.4 concealing the aforesaid fact filed another correction application dated 08.03.1988 before the court of learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Barahasyun, Pauri-Garhwal with the same prayer and the case was registered as Correction Case No.19 of 1988-89. The petitioner further alleges that from the bare perusal of the aforesaid application dated 08.03.1988 reveals that the petitioner was in actual cultivator possession of the aforesaid land bearing Plot Nos.3747, 3748 and 3749. It is also clear from the averments made in the application that the vendors of respondent no.4 have Sirdari possession in Plot Nos.3747, 3748 and 3749. But inspite of the fact that the petitioner was recorded tenure holder the respondent no.4 did not made him a party in the Correction Case No.1988-89 and the entire proceedings of the entire case was ex parte against the petitioner. The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate Barahasyun, Pauri-Garhwal allowed the aforesaid case in favour of respondent no.4 vide order dated 05.05.1989. Thereafter against the aforesaid ex parte order the petitioner filed a revision before the learned Commissioner, Garhwal, which was registered as Revenue Revision No.6 of 1990-91, Padmendra Singh Vs. Bihari Lal. The learned Additional Commissioner (Administration), Garhwal on merits after hearing the parties concerned made reference to the Board of Revenue vide order dated 26.08.1991. The aforesaid revision was allowed by the judicial member of Board of Revenue, Uttar Pradesh vide its order dated 11.05.2000 and the matter was remanded back to learned Assistant Collector, Barahasyun, Pauri-Garhwal which was thereafter registered as Case No.1 of 2002, Bihar Lal Vs. Padmendra Si