SATYA NARAIN SINGH vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

Office
Notes,
reports,
orders or
proceedings
or
directions
and
Registrar’s
order with
Signatures

SL.
Date
No.
COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS


UKHC010018002026
WPMS/284/2026

Satya Narain Singh
--Petitioner

Versus
State Of Uttarakhand and others
--Respondents

Hon’ble Siddhartha Sah, J.
Mr. S.C. Burman, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
2. Mr. Rakesh Kumar Panwar and Mr. K. S. Mehta,
learned Addl. C.S.C. for the State.
3. By means of the present petition, the petitioner has
challenged the judgment and order dated 12.04.2023
passed by respondent no. 2, i.e., the Additional
Commissioner, Garhwal Mandal, Pauri, in Revision No.
12/2014-15, titled "Shri Javinder Ghai Vs. Shri
Satyanarin Singh" (Annexure No. 4 to this writ petition).
4. The facts of the case, as borne out from record, are
as follows:
5. One Smt. Gunwanti Ghai filed a mutation case
before the court of the Tehsildar, Dehradun, on the basis
of a sale deed dated 10th August, 2009. The said
mutation case was allowed by the Tehsildar, Dehradun,
vide order dated 30th November, 2009. After a delay of
five years, on 17th January, 2015, a restoration
application was filed by one Rishabh Kumar against the

mutation order.
6. The said restoration application was not
accompanied by any application for condonation of
delay. However, the trial court stayed the effect of the
mutation order dated 30th November, 2009, by virtue of
an order dated 27th January, 2015.
7. Aggrieved by the order dated 27th January, 2015,
Javinder Ghai, filed a revision, which was allowed by
the Additional Commissioner, Garhwal Mandal, Pauri,
vide judgment dated 12th April, 2023, on the ground that
the restoration application filed by Rishabh Kumar after
a delay of five years was not accompanied by any
application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and
that no opportunity of hearing had been afforded to the
revisionist, Javinder Ghai.
8. Vide judgment and order dated 12th April, 2023,
Revision No. 12 of 2014-15 was allowed, and the order
dated 27th January, 2015, passed by the lower court, was
set aside. The lower court was further directed to hear
the restoration application on the question of delay and
thereafter decide the mutation case on its own merits. It
was also directed that, till the decision on the restoration
application, the parties shall maintain status quo at the
spot.
9. Aggrieved by the said order, the present petition
has been filed.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
sale deed itself was executed on the basis of a fake
power of attorney in the name of Mr. Ram Ashray S/o
Gajadhar Prasad, and, as such, the mutation itself was
bad at its inception. He further submits that the petitioner

is apprehensive that the nature of property may be
changed. In view of the direction to maintain status quo
at the spot, neither of the parties should be permitted to
raise any construction.
11. Learned counsel for the State submits that the
revision was only partly allowed and the matter was
remanded. As such, the present petition is not
maintainable. Moreover, the petition arises out of
proceedings under Section 34 of the Land Revenue Act,
and, on this ground also, the petition may not be
entertained.
12. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
upon perusal of the record, it is evident that the
impugned order dated 12th April, 2023, is merely a
remand order whereby the trial court has been directed to
first hear the parties on the issue of delay and thereafter
decide the case on its own merits. It has also been
directed that, till the decision on the restoration
application, the parties shall maintain status quo at the
spot. The said order does not affect the rights of any
party. Therefore, in view of the above, the impugned
order does not warrant any interference and the writ
petition deserves to be dismissed.
13. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.


(Siddhartha Sah, J.)
03.11.2026
BS