HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Writ Petition Misc. Single No. 3036 of 2025

31 October, 2025

Pawan Kumar and Another --Petitioners

Versus

State Of Uttarakhand and Another --Respondents ----------------------------------------------------------------------

Presence:-

Mr. Lokendra Dobhal and Mr. Devang Dobhal, learned

counsel for the petitioners.

Mr. Anil Dabral, learned Additional C.S.C. with Mr. Sudhir Kumar Nailwal, learned Standing Counsel and Mr. Bhupendra Koranga, learned Brief Holder for the

State of Uttarakhand/respondent No.1.

Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral)

This writ petition under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India has been moved by the petitioners challenging the order dated 25.08.2023 in Revenue Revision No.21 of 2022-2023 Smt. Parvati Devi Vs. Pawan Kumar and Another, passed by learned Additional Commissioner, Garhwal Mandal, Pauri Camp, Dehradun (Annexure No.9) and the judgment and order dated 26.08.2025 passed by Board of Revenue, Dehradun, in Revenue Revision No.4/2023-2024 Pawan Kumar and Another Vs. Parvati Devi and Another (Annexure No.11) and further prayed to restore the judgment and order dated 11.01.2013 passed by learned Tehsildar, Bhatwari, Uttarkashi in Suit No.12/12-13 Pawan Kumar and

Another Vs. Smt. Parvati Devi (Annexure No.5).

2. Brief facts of the case are that the ancestors of the petitioners namely Baniyaram, Naindutt were recorded Bhoomidhar of Khata Khatuni No.110, situated at Village Saura Patti, Nald Kathud, Tehsil Bhadwari, District Uttarkashi and their name were recorded as Bhoomidhar with transferable rights in revenue records

category No.1(Ka) of the disputed land. The pedigree of the family members of petitioners is also placed at Para 3 of the writ petition. In year 1987-88, Mahandand-father of petitioners and Satyanand-father of respondent No.2 met with sad demise and name of respondent No.2 was entered in place of her father in revenue records on the basis of succession and the name of respondent No.2 was wrongly entered in the property of Smt. Senduri Devi as 1/2 share, who was wife of Late Naindutt having no child. When this fact came to the knowledge of petitioners that the name of father of respondent No.2 was wrongly entered in the property of Smt. Senduri Devi and later on, name of respondent No.2 was also recorded in place of her father in revenue records, the petitioners moved an application before the learned Tehsildar, Bhatwari, Uttarkashi under Section 34 of the Land Revenue Act to correct the revenue records and mutated their name in place of Smt. Senduri Devi on the basis of will dated 01.09.1983. The said application was registered as a Mutation Case No.1 of 2008-2009 Pawan Kumar and another Vs. Smt. Parvati Devi, and issued notices to respondent No.2 to file objection. Respondent No.2 filed her objection and specially stated that the will was not implemented in the life time of father of petitioners, therefore, the said will is void-ab-initio and the application is liable to be rejected.

3. On 20.04.2009, learned Tehsildar, Bhatwari, Uttarkashi allowed the application of the petitioners and directed to mutate their name in place of respondent No.2. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 20.04.2009, respondent No.2 preferred an Appeal before the learned Assistant Collector, Bhatwari, Uttarkashi in Revenue Appeal No.19/2008-2009 Smt. Parvati Devi Vs. Pawan Kumar and Another, which was allowed vide order dated 30.04.2010 setting aside the judgment and order dated 20.04.2009 and remanded the case for fresh decision after hearing both the parties. After remand, the suit was registered as Suit No.12/12-13 Pawan Kumar and Another Vs. Smt. Parvati Devi, before the learned Tehsildar, Bhatwari, Uttarkashi, which was allowed vide order dated 11.01.2013 under Section 34/35 of the Land Revenue Act and the objection filed by respondent No.2 was rejected. Thereafter, respondent No.2 preferred a Revenue Appeal No.24/2012-13/13/14-15 Smt. Parvati Devi Vs. Pawan Kumar and Another, under S