DHARMESH vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
- Court
- Uttarakhand High Court
2026:UHC:3259
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition Misc. Single No. 1516 of 2017
29 April, 2026
Dharmesh & others
--Petitioners
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand & others
--Respondents
With
Writ Petition Misc. Single No. 1766 of 2017
Smt. Sawitri & another
--Petitioners
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand & others
--Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. M.S. Tyagi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Chandra
Prakash, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Sunil Chandra,
learned counsel for the petitioners.
Mr. V.D. Bisen, learned Additional C.S.C. along with Mr. Devendra
Pant, learned Standing Counsel for the State.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral)
Since both these writ petitions involve common
facts and questions of law, they are being decided by this
common judgment and order. For the sake of
convenience, facts of WPMS No.1516/2017 are alone
being considered.
2. By means of present writ petition, petitioners
sought the indulgence of this court for a direction to
quash the orders dated 07.06.2017 passed by District
Magistrate, Haridwar and 12.06.2017 passed by Deputy
1
2026:UHC:3259
Director Consolidation/Additional Collector, Haridwar,
annexure-6 & 7 to the writ petition, respectively.
3. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner nos.1
to 6 are the legal heirs of Late Shri Kalu S/o Jeevan being
his grandsons. Both sons of Kalu namely Jagdish Prasad
and Chauhal Singh had died. Late Shri Kalu was the
Bhumidhar with transferable right in village Bhogpur,
having his Chak at serial no.196 of CH Form-23, Part-1.
The objection filed by respondent no.6 regarding the land
of Shri Kalu was dismissed vide order dated 19.08.2009
and no appeal is pending against the same. The petitioner
no.7 is a Bhumidhar with transferable right in village
Bhogpur having his Chak at serial no.197 of CH Form-23,
Part-1. The objection filed by respondent no.6 regarding
the land of petitioner no.7 was dismissed vide order dated
31.01.2015. The restoration application has been filed by
the Additional District Government Counsel (Laksar),
District Haridwar against the same which is pending in
the Court of Consolidation Officer, Roorkee (Third) as
case no.272/2016-17. The petitioner no.8 is a Bhumidhar
with transferable right in village Bhogpur having his Chak
at serial no.148 of CH Form-23, Part-1.
4. The objection filed by respondent no.6
regarding the land of petitioner no.8 was dismissed vide
order dated 31.01.2015. The restoration application has
been filed by the Additional District Government Counsel
(Laksar), District Haridwar against the same which is
pending in the Court of Consolidation Officer, Roorkee
(Third) as case no.270/2016-17. Petitioner no.9 is a
Bhumidhar with transferable right in village Bhogpur
having his Chak at serial no.1113 of CH Form-23, Part-1.
The objection filed by respondent no.6 regarding the land
of petitioner no.9 was dismissed vide order dated
2
2026:UHC:3259
27.11.2012 and the same has become Final as no appeal
is pending against the same. The respondent no.2 vide
impugned order dated 07.06.2017 cancelled the entries of
the names of the petitioners from their land and directed
to record the same in the name of respondent no.1 stating
the entries of the names of the petitioners forged. In
furtherance thereof the respondent no.3, vide impugned
order dated 12.06.2017 directed the respondent no.4 to
take possessions of the Chaks of the petitioners in
furtherance of impugned order dated 07.06.2017 passed
by respondent no.2.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits
that the impugned orders have been passed in the
administrative capacity by respondent no.2&3 while the
consolidation proceedings are in progress in village
Bhogpur where the disputed property situates.He
vehemtly argues that as provided U/s 5(2) of U.P.
Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (herein after in short
the Act), the respondent no.2&3 have no power to pass
any order regarding the disputed land. Only the
Consolidation Courts provided under the Act may decide
the lis during the consolidation operation upon the
publication of the notification u/s 4(2) of the Act.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners further
submits that the impugned orders are without
jurisdiction and in violation of the provisions of the Act
and therefore the same are liable to be set-aside by this
Court as the impugned orders are purely administrative
orders and it is settled position of law that no judicial
order may be set aside by an administrative order and
therefore the impugned orders are liable to be set aside by
this Court as the effect of impugned orders is to annul the
orders passed by Consolidation Courts. He further
3
2026:UHC:3259
submits that the impugned orders have been passed
without giving any opportunity of hearing to the
petitioners as no notices have been given to the
petitioners before passing the impugned orders. The same
have been passed ex-parte behind their back being
violative of the principle of natural justice.
7. Learned counsel for respondent nos.2 to 5
submits that an entry in the name of the petitioners in
the category of Bhumidhar with transferable right is
fraudulent entry, which has no legal sanctity against
which a complaint was made to Commissioner, Garhwal
Mandal, Pauri and in pursuance of an order
Commissioner, Garhwal Mandal, the Additional Collector
(Admin)/ Deputy Director Consolidation, Haridwar was
appointed an enquiry officer to look into the matter and
thereafter, the Additional Collector (Admin)/ Deputy
Director, Consolidation has made a detailed inquiry of the
records pertaining to the above context and during the
course of inquiry, it was found that the entries as made in
favour of the petitioners were found not to be genuine, as
those entries were found without any order of the
competent authority and on the basis of these entries
which were found fraudulently made in the name of
petitioners, the Additional Collector (Administration) has
recommended for the cancellation of forged entries, which
were found forged during the course of inquiry to
Collector/ Deputy Director, Consolidation, Haridwar and
thereafter the respondent no.2 vide his order dated 7-6-
2017 has passed order for the cancellation of those forged
entries and in pursuance to an order dated 7-6-2017 the
office of the Deputy Director, Consolidation, who is
respondent no.3 herein has sent a Vetter dated 12-6-
2017 to Settlement Officer, Consolidation.
4
2026:UHC:3259
8. He also submits that the Collector also
performs the duties of Deputy Director of Consolidation
and further on the basis of powers provided under
Section 11 (C) and under Section 48 (3) of U.P.
Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, the forged entries
whenever comes to the notice of the consolidation
authorities may be cancelled, thereafter, as already stated
above, the entries made in favour of the petitioners were
cancelled as those entries were found without any order
of the competent authority.
9. In the rejoinder affidavit, it is submitted that
the impugned orders have been passed in the
administrative capacity by respondent nos.2 & 3 while
the consolidation proceedings are in progress in village
Bhogpur where the disputed property situates. As
provided U/s 5(2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act,
1953 (herein after in short the Act), the respondent nos.2
& 3 have no power to pass any order regarding the
disputed land in administrative capacity. Only the
Consolidation Authorities provided under the Act may
decide the lis during the consolidation operation upon the
publication of the notification u/s 4(2) of the Act. The
power under section 11-C of the act are to the
Consolidation Courts only and the same maybe exercised
only in a consolidation proceeding after providing
opportunity of hearing to the parties but in the present
case the impugned orders have been passed in an
administrative capacity without giving any opportunity of
hearing to the petitioners as no notices have been given to
the petitioners before passing the impugned orders. The
same have been passed ex-parte behind their back being
violative of the principle of natural justice.
10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and after
5
2026:UHC:3259
perusal of material available on record, it is an admitted
fact that the impugned order was passed without giving
opportunity of hearing to the petitioners which is against
the principles of natural justice. Therefore, this Court
deems it fit to set-aside the impugned orders.
11. Moreover, the impugned order has been
passed on the directions given by the District Magistrate
in his administrative capacity and those directions were
used to upset a judicial order which is simply not
permissible in law. When the objections filed by the Gram
Sabha were dismissed, the title became final and the
appeal filed against that order was also dismissed,
therefore, the District Magistrate could not have passed
the impugned order.
12. Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed.
Orders dated 07.06.2017 passed by District Magistrate,
Haridwar and 12.06.2017 passed by Deputy Director
Consolidation/Additional Collector, Haridwar are hereby
quashed. The State of Uttarakhand is at liberty to invoke
legal remedy before the court of competent jurisdiction.
13. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of
accordingly.
( Pankaj Purohit, J .)
29.04.2026
AK
6
2026:UHC:3259
7