Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(UK) 972396

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Pankaj Purohit, J
SURENDRA SINGH – Appellant
Versus
ANIRUDDH KUMAR SHARMA – Respondent
WPMS 3575 / 2025

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Tapan Singh
For the Respondents: Anjali Bhargava, K.S. Mehta, Bhupendra Koranga

The High Court will not exercise its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to interfere with lower court orders if they are based on sound reasoning, especially when ensuring the right of legal heirs to be heard.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 227 - Supervisory Jurisdiction - High Court's power to interfere with the orders of lower courts is limited - If the reasons cited by the lower courts are sound and convincing, no interference is warranted in the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction. (Para 5)

(B) U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act, 1951 - Section 229B - Suit for declaration of rights in revenue records - Procedural fairness requires that legal heirs of deceased parties be given an opportunity of hearing and be replaced in the suit before a final decree is passed.

Facts of the case:
The petitioner filed a suit for recording names in revenue records based on long-term possession and a family settlement. The trial court initially decreed the suit ex-parte. Upon appeal, the appellate court set aside the ex-parte order, directing that the legal heirs of the deceased be substituted and given an opportunity of hearing. This decision was subsequently upheld in a second appeal. The petitioner then challenged these orders under the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court.

Findings of Court:
The High Court found that the reasons provided by the lower courts for directing a fair hearing for the legal heirs were sound and convincing.

Issues: Whether the impugned orders of the appellate and revenue courts, which set aside an ex-parte decree to allow for the substitution and hearing of legal heirs, warranted interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that when the findings of the lower courts are based on sound reasoning and ensure the principles of natural justice, the High Court should not interfere under its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Result: Writ petition fails and is dismissed in-limine.

Legal Category Hierarchy

##PAGE1##

2026:UHC:1

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Writ Petition Misc. Single No. 3575 of 2025

02 January, 2026

Surendra Singh --Petitioner

Versus

Aniruddh Kumar Sharma and Others --Respondents

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

Presence:-

Mr. Tapan Singh, learned counsel for petitioner.

Ms. Anjali Bhargava, learned counsel for respondent No.8-Gram

Sabha.

Mr. K.S. Mehta, learned Additional C.S.C. with Mr. Bhupendra

Koranga, learned Brief Holder for State of Uttarakhand/

respondent No.9.

Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral)

By means of the present writ petition under

Article 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has

challenged the judgment and order dated 25.08.2023

passed by learned Additional Commissioner, Garhwal

Mandal, Camp Dehradun, in First Appeal No.17 of 2020-21

Shri Aniruddh Kumar Sharma and Others Vs. Shri Surendra

Singh and Others, whereby, the said appeal was partly

allowed rejecting the order dated 29.12.2020 and learned

Lower Court was directed to give opportunity of hearing to

legal heirs of the deceased and to replace the legal heirs of

the deceased in the Suit; as well as the judgment and order

dated 28.11.2025 passed by learned Board of Revenue in

Second Appeal No.93 of 2022-23 Shri Surendra Singh Vs.

Shri Aniruddh Kumar Sharma and Others, whereby, the

second appeal was rejected.

2. The brief facts of the case are that father of

petitioner was in possession of the land Khasra No.10ka

measuring 0.2020 hectare and Khasra No.32Ga measuring

0.0530 hectare total area 0.2550 hectare situated in Mauza

Bhogpur, Tehsil Rishikesh, District Dehradun, since last 75

years and after death of his father, petitioner is in

possession of aforesaid land, name of Sh. Ramchandra and

1

##PAGE2##

2026:UHC:1

Sh. Nardev Sharma both sons of Sh. Parasram was

recorded in revenue record. Since petitioner’s father have

two sons namely Rajendra Singh Rawat and Surendra

Singh Rawat (petitioner herein), therefore, in family

partition the aforesaid land was came into petitioner’s share

by the family settlement dated 16.02.2004. In family

partition, Leechi Orchard and two shops situated were came

into petitioner’s share. But in the year 2009, petitioner’s

brother tried to interfere in the possession of the aforesaid

two shops, therefore, petitioner filed injunction suit bearing

Suit No.107 of 2009 Surendra Singh Rawat Vs. Rajendra

Singh Rawat, which was decreed vide judgment and decree

dated 25.02.2017. Petitioner’s brother challenged the

aforesaid judgment and decree dated 25.02.2017 in Civil

Appeal No.24 of 2017 Rajendra Singh Rawat Vs. Surendra

Singh Rawat, which was dismissed by the learned Appellate

Court vide judgment and order dated 03.10.2018.

Petitioner’s brother thereafter filed the Second Appeal

No.122 of 2018 Rajendra Singh Rawat Vs. Surendra Singh

Rawat, which was dismissed by Coordinate Bench of this

Court vide judgment and order dated 15.11.2018.

3. By aforesaid settlement dated 16.02.2004, land

in-question came into the share of petitioner and earlier

petitioner’s father and after his father’s death, petitioner is

in continuous possession of the land in-dispute, which is in

the knowledge of Shri Ramchandra and Nardev Sharma

both sons of Shri Parasram. Name of Shri Ramchandra S/o

Shri Parasram and name of Shri Aniruddh, Shri Dhananjay,

Shri Tribhuwan, Shri Shudhanshu, Shri Sridhar, all are

sons of Late Nardev Sharma and Smt. Sombala Sharma

W/o Late Nardev Sharma, were being recorded in the

revenue record, therefore, petitioner filed a suit under

Section 229B of U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act, 1951, before learned

Assistant Collector-1^st Class, Rishikesh, District Dehradun

2

##PAGE3##

2026:UHC:1

on 31.08.2012 after giving notice under Section 80 of CPC

dated 15.06.2012 to opposite parties, which was registered

as Case No.23 of 2012-13 Surendra Singh Vs. Ram Chandra

and others. Respondent Nos.1 to 5 and Smt. Sombala

(defendant Nos.2 to 7 in the suit) put their appearance

before learned Assistant Collector-1^st Class, but they did not

file any written statement before the le

Click Here to Read the rest of this document