Uttarakhand HC Leaves Status Quo In Place While Mutation Restoration Filed After 5 Years Returns For A Delay Hearing

Smt. Gunwanti Ghai obtained a mutation order from the Tehsildar, Dehradun, on 30 November 2009, on the basis of a sale deed dated 10 August 2009.

On 17 January 2015, Rishabh Kumar sought restoration of the mutation case, without filing an application to condone the five-year delay. The Tehsildar stayed the mutation order on 27 January 2015.

In revision, the Additional Commissioner set aside that stay, directing the trial court to hear the parties on delay and then decide the matter on its merits; the parties were also directed to maintain status quo pending the restoration application. Satya Narain Singh challenged the revisional order by writ petition

The Court applied the principle that a remand order directing the lower court to determine an issue and then decide the matter on its merits does not warrant interference where it does not affect the parties’ rights.

Section 5 of the Limitation Act was relevant to the objection that the restoration application was delayed and unsupported by an application for condonation, but the Court did not decide the merits of that objection.

The State also referred to proceedings under Section 34 of the Land Revenue Act; the Court did not rest its decision on that submission.

The revisional order did not decide the restoration application or the underlying mutation dispute; it required the trial court to hear the parties on delay before proceeding to the merits.

The direction to maintain status quo meanwhile preserved the position at the property. Because the order was procedural and did not determine any party’s rights, the petitioner’s allegations about the sale deed and possible changes to the property did not establish a basis for writ interference.

The directions to consider the delay issue, thereafter decide the matter on its merits, and maintain status quo pending the restoration application remained undisturbed.