KESHAV KUMAR DIVEDI vs SARITA

2026:UHC:3675

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAKESH THAPLIYAL

th
13 MAY, 2026

WRIT PETITION NO. 1301 OF 2026 (M/S)

Keshav Kumar Divedi .... Petitioner

Versus

Sarita and Another ..…Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner : Dr. Kartikey Hari Gupta,
Advocate.


Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J.

The petitioner – Keshav Kumar Divedi preferred
instant writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India challenging the order dated 20.04.2026, passed by
the Additional Collector/ Additional District Magistrate
(Finance/ Revenue), District Udham Singh Nagar in Revision
No.52/03 of 2025, “Sarita Chaube vs. Keshav Kumar
Divedi”, with the additional prayer to maintain the status
quo regarding the nature and status of the land situated in
Khata No.21, Khasra No.104 min, Rakba 0.4020 hectare in
village Bhamrola, Tehsil Rudrapur, District Udham Singh
Nagar.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the name of the
respondent no.1 was recorded in the revenue record in
terms of Section 33A of Uttarakhand Land Revenue Act,
1901 (in short, “Act, 1901). Subsequent thereto, the
petitioner report to the Tehsildar under Section 34 of the
Act, 1901 to show his possession over the land in which the
1

2026:UHC:3675
name of the respondent was recorded in terms of Section
33A of the Act, 1901, on the basis of a registered will dated
17.12.2021. On this report, the Tehsildar passed an order
on 15.03.2023, to maintain status quo. Against the order of
Tehsildar, the respondent no.1 preferred a revision under
Section 219 of the Act, 1901, on the ground that the
Tehsildar has no power to direct the parties to maintain the
status quo in respect of the land in question in which his
name is already recorded in the revenue entries.
3. In this revision, the Additional Collector on
20.04.2025, stayed the order of status quo. While staying
the order, Additional Collector observed that the order
passed by the Tehsildar to maintain the status quo was
completely without jurisdiction and against the mandate of
Section 34 of the Act, 1901.
4. Dr. Kartikey Hari Gupta, learned counsel,
submits that the status quo order passed by the Tehsildar is
in fact as per the mandate of Section 34 of Land Revenue
Act, 1901 because under Section 34 of the Act, because
under this Section, the necessary correction has to be made
on the basis of the possession. He also submits that the
petitioner already filed suit for permanent injunction against
the respondent no.1, which is still pending for adjudication.
5. On the other side, Mr. Sudhir Nailwal, learned
Standing Counsel, in order to assist this Court submits that
under Section 34 of the Act, 1901, the Tehsildar has no
2

2026:UHC:3675
power to maintain the status quo in respect of the revenue
entries and the petitioner can claim his right over the
property in question by availing a civil remedy by filing a
regular suit which he has already availed. He submits that
the plea of changing the nature of the land wherein the
entries were made of the respondent no.1 in terms of
Section 33A of the Act, cannot be taken in a proceeding
under Section 33A read with Section 34 of the Act, and he
can take all these plea in the pending suit which he has
already filed for seeking permanent injunction.
6. After hearing the arguments of learned counsel
and after gone through the relevant provision, I do not find
any merit in this writ petition and the same is dismissed,
however, the dismissal of the petition will not prejudice the
rights of the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy in
respect of the land in question.
7. At this juncture, Dr. Kartikey Hari Gupta,
Advocate, for the petitioner submits that since the
proceeding under Section 34 of the Act, 1901 is still
pending for consideration before the Tehsildar, therefore,
the Tehsildar may be directed to expedite the proceeding as
early as possible.
8. The submissions as made by the learned counsel
for the petitioner appears to be innocuous.
9. In such view of the matter, the Tehsildar is also
directed to expedite the proceeding under Section 34 of the
3

2026:UHC:3675
Act, 1901, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within
three months from the date of production of certified copy
of this order without being influenced with the observation
as above.


__________________
RAKESH THAPLIYAL, J.

Date: 13.05.2026
Pant/


4