RAMPAL vs GRAM SABHA VILLAE MOHITPUR THROUGH GRAM PRADHAN PARGA BHAGWANPUR

UKHC010148882022

2026:UHC:7865

Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
or directions
and Registrar’s
order with
Signatures
SL.
Date
No.
COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS

WPMS/2528/2022


Rampal --Petitioner
Versus
Gram Sabha & Another --Respondents

Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.


None for the petitioner.
Mr. Ghanshyam Joshi, Additional
CSC, for the State.
Ms. Anjali Bhargava, Advocate, for
the Gram Sabha.


(2) Relief claimed in this writ petition is
reproduced below:
“i) set aside the order dated 19.03.2012
passed by Learned Assistant Collector Ist Class/SDM
Roorkee, District Haridwar in Case No. 14/2010-11
“Rampal Vs. Gram Sabha and others” (Annexure No. 2
to this writ petition), order dated 12.11.2021 passed
by Learned Additional Commissioner Garhwal Division
Camp Dehradun in Appeal No. 12/2020-21 “Rampal
Vs. Gram Sabha & others” (Annexure No. 5 to this writ
petition), and the order dated 25.07.2022 passed by
Learned Board of Revenue Uttarakhand Dehradun in
Revision No. 11/2021-22 “Ramal Vs. State of
Uttarakhand and others” (Annexure No. 6 to this writ
petition).”

(3) Perusal of the record reveals that
petitioner filed a declaratory suit under Section
229B of U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land
st
Reforms Act before Assistant Collector, 1
Class, Roorkee Haridwar, which was numbered
as Suit No. 24 of 1996, which was
subsequently renumbered as Suit No. 29 of
2006. Petitioner moved an application seeking
permission to withdraw the suit due to certain
technical defects, with liberty to file fresh suit.
The application was allowed by the Assistant
st
Collector, 1 Class, vide order dated 16.1.2007
and liberty prayed for was granted, with the
condition that petitioner will have to deposit

UKHC010148882022

2026:UHC:7865

₹1,000 as cost, out of which ₹500 will be
deposited in the account of Gaon Sabha and
remaining ₹500 will go to defendant no. 3 and
4.

(4) Petitioner filed another suit without
complying with the condition imposed by Trial
Court of depositing cost of ₹1000. The second
st
suit was dismissed by Assistant Collector, 1
Class, vide order dated 19.3.2012, on the
ground that petitioner failed to abide by the
condition imposed while permitting him to
withdraw the earlier suit. The order dated
19.3.2012, passed by Assistant Collector, was
challenged by the petitioner by filing Writ
Petition (M/S) No. 1937 of 2012, which was
dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to avail
appropriate remedy. Petitioner thereafter filed
appeal against the order dated 19.3.2012,
passed by Assistant Collector. The said appeal
was dismissed by Additional Commissioner,
Garhwal, Pauri, vide order dated 12.11.2021,
on the ground of delay. Petitioner thereafter
filed revision under Section 333 of Uttarkhand
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act
before Board of Revenue, which was numbered
as Revision No. 11 of 2021-22. Revisional
Court dismissed the revision vide judgment
dated 25.7.2022. Challenging the order passed
by Assistant Collector, as affirmed by
Additional Commissioner and Board of
Revenue, petitioner has filed this writ petition.

(5) This Court is not inclined to interfere
in the matter. Petitioner’s application, seeking
permission to withdraw the suit with liberty to
file fresh, was allowed by the Assistant
Collector on 16.1.2007, subject to his
depositing ₹1000 as cost. Since subsequent
suit was filed by petitioner without complying
with the condition imposed by Assistant
Collector while granting liberty to file fresh
suit, therefore, the subsequent suit was rightly
dismissed, vide order dated 19.3.2012.

UKHC010148882022

2026:UHC:7865

Petitioner challenged the said order, passed on
subsequent suit in a writ petition, but later he
withdrew that writ petition seeking liberty to
approach the appropriate forum. The date of
order passed by High Court is 13.9.2012.
Petitioner filed appeal, against Trial Court’s
order dated 19.3.2012, in the month of
February, 2021 i.e. after more than 8 years
and 11 months. Since sufficient cause was not
shown for such inordinate delay, therefore,
petitioner’s appeal was dismissed on the
ground of delay. Board of Revenue dismissed
the revision filed by petitioner and affirmed the
judgment rendered by Additional
Commissioner.

(6) Since petitioner was permitted to
withdraw his writ petition, filed against order
dated 19.3.2012 passed by the Trial Court,
therefore, learned Courts below were justified
in holding that delay of 8 years and 11 months
in filing appeal against Trial Court’s order is
unexplained. Learned Additional Commissioner
as well as Board of Revenue have given valid
reasons in support of their judgment, therefore
this Court do not find any reason to interfere
with the same, while exercising supervisory
power under Article 227 of the Constitution.
Writ petition thus fails and is dismissed. No
order as to cost.





(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)

1.9.2026
Pr












PRABODH
KUMAR
Digitally signed by PRABODH KUMAR
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT
OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3a082a00a95aff911a9559743af8f21c50602ff6eae4e61
af3aeab198d462503, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=0DC111E8D8CA66E16B940EFDF806ACCC1AB58
8052DF6FCA58C67F3C91957BE53, cn=PRABODH KUMAR
Date: 2026.09.03 10:16:53 +05'30'

UKHC010148882022

2026:UHC:7865