HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Writ Petition Misc. Single No.3015 of 2025

30th October, 2025

Ayyub and others …………Petitioners

Versus

Akhtari Begum …………Respondent ----------------------------------------------------------------------

Presence:-

Mr. Ravi Bisht, Advocate for the petitioners.

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

Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.

The present writ petition has been filed under

Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioners seeking quashing of the impugned order dated 16.04.2025, passed by the learned Deputy Director of Consolidation/Collector, Haridwar, in Revision No.16/2018-19, under Section 48(1) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, Akhtari Begum Vs.

Ayyub and Others.

2. The facts in brief are that the dispute arises out of a property bearing Gata Nos. 963A and 963B situated at Village Badheri, Rajputan, Pargana and Tehsil Roorkee, District Haridwar. The petitioners, who are members of the same family, had instituted a case before the IVth Consolidation Officer, Roorkee, under Section 9(a)(2) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act, contending that their father had never sold the aforesaid property to the respondent, and that the respondent’s name was wrongly recorded in the revenue records. On 03.11.2006, the petitioners moved an application before the Consolidation Officer seeking an order to maintain status quo and to restrain any sale or purchase of the disputed property, which was allowed on the same date. The

respondent subsequently filed objections against the order dated 03.11.2006, and upon consideration, the Consolidation Officer, vide order dated 09.07.2018, continued the status quo order, observing that maintaining the existing position would not adversely affect either party. During the pendency of proceedings, the respondent approached this Court by way of a writ petition seeking expeditious disposal of the pending revision, and pursuant to the Court’s direction, the Revisional Authority heard the matter. The Deputy Director of Consolidation condoned the delay in filing the revision, allowed it, and set aside both orders dated 03.11.2006 and 09.07.2018, holding that they were not reasoned or speaking orders. Aggrieved by the said order dated 16.04.2025, the petitioners have approached this Court invoking its supervisory jurisdiction.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the Revisional Authority has acted in a hyper- technical and mechanical manner in allowing the revision filed by the respondent. It is submitted that the Revisional Authority failed to consider the cause shown by the petitioners and ignored material facts, including the circumstances under which the petitioners had sought continuance of the status quo order. It is argued that both orders of the Consolidation Officer were passed after due consideration of the objections filed by the respondent and in the interest of preserving the disputed property till adjudication of title.

4. It is further argued by the learned counsel that the Revisional Authority erred in law in condoning the delay in filing the revision petition without assigning any reasons or recording satisfaction that sufficient cause had been made out. According to the petitioners, the impugned order is contrary to the settled principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that delay cannot be condoned as a matter of course, and that reasons must be recorded to demonstrate judicial application of mind. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the Revisional Authority, has failed to comply with this settled requirement, thereby rendering the order illegal.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that the impugned order suffers from total non- application of mind, is perverse, arbitrary, and violative of the principles of natural justice. It is also argued by the learned counsel that the Revisional Authority has set aside the orders of the Consolidation Officer without examining th