Dismissed

Umesh Chandra v. Addl. Chief Revenue Commissioner

Uttarakhand HC17 Jul 2017WPMS/907/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a review application challenging the Single Judge's dismissal of a writ petition against remand orders. The court held that Section 5 of the Consolidation of Holding Act does not affect mutation proceedings which are fiscal entries, and the review lacks merit as the lower court already considered the impact.

What did the court decide?

The Review Application No. 526 of 2014 is dismissed.

Umesh Chandra Vs Addl. Chief Revenue Commissioner — Land Acquisition | Uttarakhand HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

¶2

Writ Petition (M/S) No. 907 of 2004

¶3

Umesh Chandra …...….……Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

Add. Chief Revenue Commissioner and another ………. Respondents

¶6

Present: Mr. Sudhir Kumar, Advocate for the review applicant. Mr. Pankaj Purohit, Deputy Advocate General assisted by Mr. Tarun Lakhera, Brief Holder for the State/respondent no. 1 Mr. Mahesh C. Pant, Advocate for the respondent no. 2.

¶7

Hon’ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J. (Oral)

¶8

In the proceedings under Section 34 for making mutation entries at the behest of the respondent was disallowed. He preferred an appeal under Section 210 of the Land Revenue Act which was allowed by the judgment and order dated 17.07.1990. Thereafter, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the village was brought under consolidation.

¶9

In the meantime, against the order dated 17.07.1990, a Revision under Section 219 was preferred by the respondent being Revision No. 23 of 1989-1990 and the same was allowed by the order dated 29.07.2014 and the matter was remanded back to the appellate court for deciding it afresh. It is these two orders dated 23.07.2003 and 29.07.2004 was under challenge in the instant writ petition.

¶10

The writ petition came up for consideration before the learned Single Judge and the same was dismissed on 27.03.2014 with the observations that since the impugned

¶11

¶12

judgment was put to under challenge being an order of remand wherein inter-se rights of the party are yet to be decided by the regular court, the court felt that no prejudice was caused to the either of the parties because the rights are yet to be determined.

¶13

Against this judgment dated 27.03.2014, the present review application being No. 526 of 2014 has been preferred along with a delay condonation application No. 8226 of 2014 where there happens to be 89 days of delay.

¶14

Heard Mr. Sudhir Kumar, learned counsel for the review applicant. Mr. Mahesh C. Pant, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2.

¶15

The argument of the learned counsel for the review application is that the learned Single Judge of this Court, while deciding the writ petition has not considered the impact of Section 5 of the Consolidation of Holding Act that the pending proceedings of the revision under Section 219 of Land Revenue Act at the time when the village was brought within the purview of Section 5 ought to have been abated.

¶16

On a reading of Section 5, this Court feels that on an overall scrutiny under Section 5, it all would have affect in relation to the proceedings which have got an impact on element of declaration of the rights and not with regards to the mutation proceedings the reason being that the same are itself imbibed in the Act under Section 12 and also because proceedings arising

¶17

¶18

under Sections 33/34 are fiscal entries which do not create any right of the parties.

¶19

But still the Court in its judgment dated 27.03.2014 had already taken into consideration the alleged effect of under Section 5 of Consolidation of Holding Act, hence, the order of remand which has been affirmed by this Court, will not be counterblast and by Section 5. Hence, the Review application lacks merit and is dismissed.

¶20

(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.) 17.07.2017

¶21

Mahinder/

Umesh Chandra v. Addl. Chief Revenue Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Umesh Chandra v. Addl. Chief Revenue Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sunder Singh Thapa and Ors. Vs Ms Bimla Devi and Ors.

K.c. Singhal Vs Union Of India and Others

M/s Maihar Cement Vs State Of Uttarakhand and Others

Smt Rekha Pande Vs D.J Nainital and Anr.

Yatendra Pal Vs State and Ors.

Shyam Lal and Ors. Vs Sukhmaal Chand Jain and Ors.