Dismissed¶7

Bhagirathi Enclave Residents Welfare Society v. the Collector Dehradun

Uttarakhand HC10 Sept 2025WPMS/2639/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

WPMS/2639/2025; Uttarakhand High Court; Manoj Kumar Tiwari J.; decision 10.09.2025; writ petition dismissed as not maintainable; challenge to ADM (Finance & Revenue) Dehradun order dated 15.01.2003 banning sale/purchase of khasra No. 385, Balbir Road, village Dharampur; civil suit dismissed 06.11.2020 by 4th Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Dehradun; First Appeal dismissed 05.11.2024 by District Judge Dehradun; alternative remedy; Second Appeal under Section 100 CPC; Section 14 Limitation Act exclusion of time; advocates Rajeshwar Singh, Vikas Bahuguna (petitioner), Suyash Pant (State).

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum under Section 100 CPC (Second Appeal), with permission to claim the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act for the time spent pursuing the remedy before this Court.

SL.
No.

Date

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

COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS

WPMS/2639/2025
Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
Mr. Rajeshwar Singh, Advocate through
video conferencing assisted by Mr. Vikas
Bahuguna, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Suyash Pant, Standing Counsel for the
State.

2.
Petitioner has challenged an order dated

15.01.2003 passed by Additional District
Magistrate, Finance and Revenue, Dehradun,
whereby ban was imposed on sale/purchase of
land comprised in khasra No. 385 situate in
Balbir Road (village Dharampur) till further
orders.

3.
Learned State Counsel points out that
petitioner challenged the said order in a Civil
Suit, which was dismissed vt learned 4^th

Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division),
Dehradun, vide judgment dated 06.11.2020.
Petitioner, thereafter, filed First Appeal which
was dismissed by learned District Judge,
Dehradun vide judgment dated 05.11.2024.
4.
Learned State Counsel thus submits that
petitioner is trying to sort-circuit the process,
and instead of filing Second Appeal, he has
challenged the order passed by Additional

District Magistrate in independent proceeding,

that	too, after 22 years. He submits that writ
petit	ion is not maintainable.
5.	This Court also finds substance in the
sub	mission made by learned State Counsel.
6.	After dismissal of First Appeal, petitioner
has	the remedy of challenging the judgment
rend	ered by Trial Court, as affirmed by First
App	ellate Court, by filing Second Appeal under
Sect	ion 100 of CPC.
7.	In such view of the matter, writ petition is
dism appr	issed with liberty to petitioner to approach opriate forum under Section 100 of CPC.
8.	It shall be open to petitioner to claim
bene	fit of Section 14 of Limitation Act, for the
time	spent in pursuing remedy before this Court.
Mahinder/ MAH SING	(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 10.09.2025 INDER H Digitally signed by MAHINDER SINGH DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=da6212e6e78d94ed3134842bc6a8d6ca168979ca7b8c2f0 31a92d1a18b08923c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=AB77B7C5B240908B392BE84F5CDD4C2AF35DC462 6D305B1BC9EA4BABA43D2B8F, cn=MAHINDER SINGH Date: 2025.09.12 10:19:53 +05'30'

that

too, after 22 years. He submits that writ

petit

ion is not maintainable.

This Court also finds substance in the

sub

mission made by learned State Counsel.

After dismissal of First Appeal, petitioner

has

the remedy of challenging the judgment

rend

ered by Trial Court, as affirmed by First

App

ellate Court, by filing Second Appeal under

Sect

ion 100 of CPC.

In such view of the matter, writ petition is

dism
appr

issed with liberty to petitioner to approach
opriate forum under Section 100 of CPC.

It shall be open to petitioner to claim

bene

fit of Section 14 of Limitation Act, for the

time

spent in pursuing remedy before this Court.

Mahinder/
MAH
SING

(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
10.09.2025
INDER
H
Digitally signed by MAHINDER SINGH
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF
UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=da6212e6e78d94ed3134842bc6a8d6ca168979ca7b8c2f0
31a92d1a18b08923c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=AB77B7C5B240908B392BE84F5CDD4C2AF35DC462
6D305B1BC9EA4BABA43D2B8F, cn=MAHINDER SINGH
Date: 2025.09.12 10:19:53 +05'30'

Bhagirathi Enclave Residents Welfare Society v. the Collector Dehradun

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhagirathi Enclave Residents Welfare Society v. the Collector Dehradun

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dinesh Chandra Phulera Vs State of Uttarakhand

Sonu Vs State of Uttarakhand

G S Matiyani and Sons Vs State of Uttarakhand

Madarsa Aehle Sunnat Riyajul Uloom Badi Masjid Vs State of Uttarakhand

Shyam Singh Panwar Vs State of Uttarakhand

Nitika Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand